Page 1 of 1

Nokia to license Qt under LGPL

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:47 am
by _oba_
Good news, everyone! Nokia has announced plans to adopt the Lesser General Public License for the Qt toolkit.

http://www.qtsoftware.com/about/news/lg ... dded-to-qt
http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2009/01 ... nder-lgpl/

Good for wx?

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:45 pm
by GeraldG
But i think its not a good news for the spread of wx.
One of the biggest reason pro wx is fallen.
Some developers and especially beginners goes to Qt, its very big posed as the best toolkit by many Qt-Developers.

I like the wx way (no MOC), support older OS, MFC-style,...

Re: Good for wx?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:21 am
by priyank_bolia
GeraldG wrote:But i think its not a good news for the spread of wx.
http://wxwidgets.blogspot.com/2009/01/q ... -lgpl.html

Re: Good for wx?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:25 am
by tierra
GeraldG wrote:One of the biggest reason pro wx is fallen.
Not really. wxWidgets is LGPL, but with an exception clause. That exception is the biggest difference between the LGPL and the wxWindows Licence, and it's the one that most commercial applications built on wxWidgets rely on that Qt still can't offer even under LGPL.

Also, as the blog post points out, the other biggest pro for wx has always been the 'native' aspect of it, and that will still continue to be a big advantage over Qt regardless of what license it's under.

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:47 pm
by Frank
Native or not... It looks native, it even uses my Windows-Visual Style, that's good enough for me.

MOC on the other Hand... No thanks. I prefer to develop in C++, not some Extension-Language.

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:11 pm
by tierra
Frank wrote:Native or not... It looks native, it even uses my Windows-Visual Style, that's good enough for me.
Not good enough for many of your users though. There's a big difference between looking native, and behaving native. Each of the platforms has different behaviors and features built into each native control, and it's really worse when a control is rendered like it's a native control, but doesn't behave the same as a native control as a user would expect it to.

Native

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:05 am
by GeraldG
Sometime it's posted that Qt has native look and feel for XP/Vista since 4.3, but thats not true. There using only native drawing for controls. If you use classinfo http://alpha.host.imagine-interactive.de/ with a qt-app there are no native controls (one big window only).
(or is there a switch to enable native?)

The native look is only for Vista and XP but what's with comming os-versions (not using uxtheme).
wxWidgets-Apps have native look and feel in comming os-versions without source-change (only manifest).

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:26 pm
by Frank
tierra wrote: Not good enough for many of your users though. There's a big difference between looking native, and behaving native. Each of the platforms has different behaviors and features built into each native control, and it's really worse when a control is rendered like it's a native control, but doesn't behave the same as a native control as a user would expect it to.
Well, the only QT Application I'm using is TortoiseBzr, and that certainly looks and *feels* native.

And from what I see on Screenshots QT even looks more native then wx. wxGrid looks horrible, no nativeness there, it ignores the Theme, looks like Win95. I wrote my own List-Control, because wxCheckListbox dont draw the checkboxes with the theme. And the Push-Buttons, when you change the Forground-Colour. Unusable, Win95-Buttons. And I could go on. So, when a Native-Emulation looks more native than a complete Native-Toolkit, I go with the Native looking.

But than again, there's MOC, so Screw QT.

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:37 pm
by tierra
Frank wrote:And from what I see on Screenshots QT even looks more native then wx. wxGrid looks horrible, no nativeness there, it ignores the Theme, looks like Win95. I wrote my own List-Control, because wxCheckListbox dont draw the checkboxes with the theme. And the Push-Buttons, when you change the Forground-Colour. Unusable, Win95-Buttons. And I could go on. So, when a Native-Emulation looks more native than a complete Native-Toolkit, I go with the Native looking.
Both wxGrid (which is a generic control on all platforms, and never claimed to be native) and wxCheckListBox have already been fixed up in wxWidgets 2.9+. wxGrid now uses the native renderer to draw headers, and while I don't know the full details of wxCheckListBox, it either now uses a native control, or was made to look for native.

It's true that wxWidgets doesn't always use completely native controls for everything, but it does use completely native controls for at least all of the basic, simple, common controls used in every application (the ones that share the exact same functionality under all platforms). It obviously can't always use completely native controls when the platform doesn't provide functionality that wxWidgets wishes to provide (usually because one platform provides it, but the others don't).

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:15 pm
by Frank
I know. And I don't want to diss wx. I like wx :)

My point is, native or not is not really important, when the user can't distinguish between an real native toolkit or a emulation.

And from that point of view, without looking it up in the documentaion I could not tell the difference when using TortoiseBzr. Unlike GTK (on Windows), where the gui looks and feels just alien.