Qtopia coming for Neo1973
mellon at fugue.com
Tue Sep 25 18:42:36 CEST 2007
On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:26 AM, Carlo E. Prelz wrote:
> As far as I can perceive, making a c wrapper of a c++ library (and I
> do not mean c-looking code that compiles under c++ - I mean a library
> that makes heavy use of those ungodly quirks that c++ is burdened
> with) is a task that no sane individual might desire to embark
> into... But if/when such a wrapper becomes available, I will make sure
> to carve out half a day to gain some experience with it.
I don't trust this statement. You say that C++ is burdened with
ungodly quirks. I hated C++ for a long time. I believed the
received wisdom that it was quirky and evil. I avoided it like the
plague. C++ was what Windows people programmed in, not Free
Software people. But at some point about two years back I really
needed a decent cross-platform toolkit that actually looked good on
all three platforms, and Qt was the only option. So I was forced to
learn C++. It turns out that after I got over the learning curve,
it was actually pretty cool. Just because some people who use it
abuse it doesn't mean that it's not useful. I don't have a
preference for C++ at this point, but I can use it if I need it, and
have used it on a number of occasions where it made sense.
Personally I prefer LISP.
So when you say Qt is bad because there's no C API, I am able to look
at your assertion from a position of knowledge. And that's why I
say it's pathetic. It's not that you're a bad person. It's that
you're a blind person trying to tell sighted people why they should
only walk close to the wall if they don't want to get lost. You
just shouldn't do that - if you don't know anything about something,
don't speak as if you are an authority. There'd be a lot less
flaming on virtually every mailing list if people would just not
speak when they don't know anything useful about what they are saying.
> I still prefer the look of Gnome to that of KDE, but this is purely an
> aesthetical judgment. I expect that with some effort I would be
> able to
> use Gnome themes on KDE.
Again, this is a valid criticism, although I will say that I pretty
much despise KDE, despite being quite fond of Qt. OTOH, I despise
gnome too. Neither one works very well. I agree that gnome looks
better, but since my criterion for something being good is that it
must work, the fact that gnome looks better doesn't help me. When
it starts working better, the fact that it looks better will be more
> Hrmpf. How many X applications can you find in sourceforge?
Who cares? You're writing a new application, you said. So what
you care about is how quickly you can get from a design to an
implementation. This has *nothing* to do with whether you are using
X or a raw framebuffer. It has to do with how usable the toolkit
is. This is why your statement is nonsense. True, if you want to
get xterm working on Qtopia, that will be more work than getting it
working on gnome, because it shares the same underlying windowing
system, X. But that's got nothing to do with developing. If you
want to develop something new, starting from the xterm source code
would be suicidal. There's already a KDE terminal emulator - if you
decide to use Qt, you can start from that. So which windowing
system is underneath the many layers of the GUI toolkit really isn't
>> Have you actually tried to develop an app for
>> Openmoko yet?
> No, since I do not have an openmoko.
In other words, you are talking out your hat.
> PS In your mail, you wrote 1) that I use pathetic excuses, 2) that I
> have complete lack of knowledge on topics that I write my prose about,
> 3) that I say things that I don't know to be true, 4) that I make
> multiple stunningly ignorant statements. Can you please keep these
> personal observations out of the conversation? Just for the sake of
> peace and harmony...
I'd like us to reach peace and harmony by not repeating prejudices.
I like the look of openmoko better than the look of qtopia - I'm
totally rooting for openmoko to get to a place where it's usable.
But I find Qt to be very useable. You've made a bunch of assertions
about why it isn't useable, despite having no experience using it,
and despite having no experience developing for openmoko.
I am criticizing your arguments, not you. If you go off and spend a
week learning enough C++ to use Qt, and then writing a real app in
Qt, and then you come back and say "I like Gtk better, and here's
why" then I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. Until
that time, you shouldn't go around telling people that Qt isn't a
good choice, or that Gtk is better. Because you don't know.
Sorry to be such a windbag.
More information about the community