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/
Nokia to license Qt under LGPL
Good for wx?
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,...
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,...
-
- wxWorld Domination!
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 8:10 am
- Location: BANGALORE, INDIA
- Contact:
Re: Good for wx?
http://wxwidgets.blogspot.com/2009/01/q ... -lgpl.htmlGeraldG wrote:But i think its not a good news for the spread of wx.
- tierra
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:14 pm
- Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Contact:
Re: Good for wx?
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.GeraldG wrote:One of the biggest reason pro wx is fallen.
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.
- tierra
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:14 pm
- Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Contact:
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.Frank wrote:Native or not... It looks native, it even uses my Windows-Visual Style, that's good enough for me.
Native
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).
(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).
Well, the only QT Application I'm using is TortoiseBzr, and that certainly looks and *feels* native.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.
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.
- tierra
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:14 pm
- Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Contact:
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.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.
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).
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.
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.