[News] A Look at GTK+ 3.0, Novell Unleashes Poison Factory

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:07:54 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:


> When I programmed with GTK I used no IDE because I didn't know about Glade (I
> did use it later). I used Qt only later and it seemed more mature, but that
> was 2 years after using GTK (when GTK 2 was out... and still very new).

You've never programmed, Roy Schestowitz.
You can't even figure out how to use a filter.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Linonut <linonut RemoveThis @bollsouth.nut> writes:

> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> I've developed in both GTK and Qt. GTK is all right. How extensive is your
>>> hands-on experience with GTK?
>>
>> Enough to never use GTK again. QT is lightyears ahead. And when it comes to
>> handling different languages, there simply is no contest at all.
>>
>> I have lots to do with providing apps in different languages (lately I had
>> to do an application in Serbian, Croatian and Slowenian language. Two other
>> ones will follow shortly. An app in Russian is on the ToDo list). QT
>> absolutely shines in handling that.
>>
>> Additionally, in QT I develop it under linux, can test it under linux and
>> still later compile the *same* source code in windows (or even Mac OSX,
>> although there is so little demand for it I will not do it. The expense of
>> a Mac plus the QT licence for it will not pay out in several years).
>>
>> QT is crossplatform at its best, GTK much less so. And since demand for
>> linux apps has been up since quite some time (with OSX demand stagnant, and
>> very low) I better use a toolkit which provides easy access to both windows
>> and linux. When not doing new apps (which still takes most of my time) I am
>> in the process of converting older projects (win-only) to QT.
>
> How are you handling the transition from Qt 3 to Qt 4?

I would ber (seriously) interested to hear why Peter things GTK+ is not
cross platform "enough".

Linonut wrote:

> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> I've developed in both GTK and Qt. GTK is all right. How extensive is
>>> your hands-on experience with GTK?
>>
>> Enough to never use GTK again. QT is lightyears ahead. And when it comes
>> to handling different languages, there simply is no contest at all.
>>
>> I have lots to do with providing apps in different languages (lately I
>> had to do an application in Serbian, Croatian and Slowenian language. Two
>> other ones will follow shortly. An app in Russian is on the ToDo list).
>> QT absolutely shines in handling that.
>>
>> Additionally, in QT I develop it under linux, can test it under linux and
>> still later compile the *same* source code in windows (or even Mac OSX,
>> although there is so little demand for it I will not do it. The expense
>> of a Mac plus the QT licence for it will not pay out in several years).
>>
>> QT is crossplatform at its best, GTK much less so. And since demand for
>> linux apps has been up since quite some time (with OSX demand stagnant,
>> and very low) I better use a toolkit which provides easy access to both
>> windows and linux. When not doing new apps (which still takes most of my
>> time) I am in the process of converting older projects (win-only) to QT.
>
> How are you handling the transition from Qt 3 to Qt 4?
>

I leave the ones done in QT3 that way, for the time being.
I don't like the mix when converting them to QT4, since you have to use the
Qt3Support4 library then.
Since QT4 was stable I used it exclusivly for new projects. It is an
extremely nice framework
--
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' -
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

* Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut wrote:
>
> I leave the ones done in QT3 that way, for the time being.
> I don't like the mix when converting them to QT4, since you have to use the
> Qt3Support4 library then.
> Since QT4 was stable I used it exclusivly for new projects. It is an
> extremely nice framework

Thanks. One more question, maybe difficult to answer. What's the big
difference in the way the two Qt versions do things?

--
Bill Gates is a very rich man today ... and do you want to know why? The answer
is one word: versions.
-- Dave Barry

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Enough to never use GTK again. QT is lightyears ahead. And when it
> comes to handling different languages, there simply is no contest at
> all.

I don't have much experience of working with Qt, but from what I've
read, working with Qt Linguist is a Hell of a lot easier than messing
around with gettext, but then I'm rather apathetic when it comes to
multi-lingual support anyway.

From a user's perspective, I find Qt apps to be much more attractive
than GTK+ though, but I've always found the KDE Desktop to be rather
ugly, which is what's stopped me from switching from Gnome all these
years. With KDE4, that might finally change my opinion, and one way or
another I'm dumping Gnome this year anyway, for political reasons.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
14:57:46 up 83 days, 12:33, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00

* [H]omer peremptorily fired off this memo:

> I don't have much experience of working with Qt, but from what I've
> read, working with Qt Linguist is a Hell of a lot easier than messing
> around with gettext, but then I'm rather apathetic when it comes to
> multi-lingual support anyway.

gettext seems pretty straightforward, with the help of GNU autotools.

And you can use it in C code.

> From a user's perspective, I find Qt apps to be much more attractive
> than GTK+ though, but I've always found the KDE Desktop to be rather
> ugly, which is what's stopped me from switching from Gnome all these
> years. With KDE4, that might finally change my opinion, and one way or
> another I'm dumping Gnome this year anyway, for political reasons.

All Gnome apps, or just the desktop? <grin>

I'm still enamored of fluxbox, and not ready to load the extra eye
candy.

--
Security is, I would say, our top priority because for all the exciting
things you will be able to do with computers - organizing your lives,
staying in touch with people, being creative - if we don't solve these
security problems, then people will hold back.
-- Bill Gates

Linonut wrote:

> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Linonut wrote:
>>
>> I leave the ones done in QT3 that way, for the time being.
>> I don't like the mix when converting them to QT4, since you have to use
>> the Qt3Support4 library then.
>> Since QT4 was stable I used it exclusivly for new projects. It is an
>> extremely nice framework
>
> Thanks. One more question, maybe difficult to answer. What's the big
> difference in the way the two Qt versions do things?
>

Not really big differences. From a programmers perspective, they are quite
similar.
Really diferent is that QT4 has dropped several widgets which where present
in QT3, like "listbox" Or "iconview" for example. Listbox is superfluous,
as it can be easily replaced with a combobox, and the iconview has been
replaced with a more general widget.
Also some widgets have changed name, like the "widgetstack" which is
now "stackedwidget" and has different properties and methods.
But such differences are not a big hurdle.

Generally QT4 widgets have slightly more capabilities, but those are rarely
needed in most programs

What I find the most useful feature (the language support) is basically the
same across the two versions

With just 4 lines you can make apps multi-language aware, loading the
translated strings from the *.qm file done with QTLinguist depending on the
locale used on the system (I usually make it also setable via arguments, to
enable forcing of language)

int main(int argc, char*argv[] ) {
QApplication app(argc, argv);

QTranslator Translator;
QString filename = QString("qmfile_%1").arg(QLocale::system().name());
Translator.load(filename,qApp->applicationDirPath());
app.installTranslator(&Translator);

MWindow* window = new MWindow;
window->show();
return app.exec();
}

It really can't get any easier than that supporting basically any language
you want, and when the guy doing the translation got an introduction of
half an hour to QTLinguist you don't even need to do the translation
yourself or put translated strings into the app.
Usually I prefer getting the translated strings to check myself if they
really fit, as often the strings in foreign languages are a lot longer than
in english or german, but for simple formatted text that is not needed.
--
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!

* Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:

> What I find the most useful feature (the language support) is basically the
> same across the two versions
>
> With just 4 lines you can make apps multi-language aware, loading the
> translated strings from the *.qm file done with QTLinguist depending on the
> locale used on the system (I usually make it also setable via arguments, to
> enable forcing of language)
>
> int main(int argc, char*argv[] ) {
> QApplication app(argc, argv);
>
> QTranslator Translator;
> QString filename = QString("qmfile_%1").arg(QLocale::system().name());
> Translator.load(filename,qApp->applicationDirPath());
> app.installTranslator(&Translator);
>
> MWindow* window = new MWindow;
> window->show();
> return app.exec();
> }
>
> It really can't get any easier than that supporting basically any language
> you want, and when the guy doing the translation got an introduction of
> half an hour to QTLinguist you don't even need to do the translation
> yourself or put translated strings into the app.
> Usually I prefer getting the translated strings to check myself if they
> really fit, as often the strings in foreign languages are a lot longer than
> in english or german, but for simple formatted text that is not needed.

Well dang, you made me think of another question. Have you used the
GNU gettext(3) system? You mark your strings, they get collected into a
file by automake, and you can provide a file that matches it for another
language.

I've currently set up code for gettext, but haven't yet tried to do an
actual translation.

Right now, all my apps are console apps, and mostly use GNU/POSIX
functions. Some support for locale and wide-characters using C++'s
generic facilities. I still have a /lot/ to learn.

--
We're no longer in the days where everything is super well crafted. But at
the heart of the programs that make it to the top, you'll find that the key
internal code was done by a few people who really know what they were doing.
-- Bill Gates

Linonut <linonut DeleteThis @bollsouth.nut> writes:

> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> What I find the most useful feature (the language support) is basically the
>> same across the two versions
>>
>> With just 4 lines you can make apps multi-language aware, loading the
>> translated strings from the *.qm file done with QTLinguist depending on the
>> locale used on the system (I usually make it also setable via arguments, to
>> enable forcing of language)
>>
>> int main(int argc, char*argv[] ) {
>> QApplication app(argc, argv);
>>
>> QTranslator Translator;
>> QString filename = QString("qmfile_%1").arg(QLocale::system().name());
>> Translator.load(filename,qApp->applicationDirPath());
>> app.installTranslator(&Translator);
>>
>> MWindow* window = new MWindow;
>> window->show();
>> return app.exec();
>> }
>>
>> It really can't get any easier than that supporting basically any language
>> you want, and when the guy doing the translation got an introduction of
>> half an hour to QTLinguist you don't even need to do the translation
>> yourself or put translated strings into the app.
>> Usually I prefer getting the translated strings to check myself if they
>> really fit, as often the strings in foreign languages are a lot longer than
>> in english or german, but for simple formatted text that is not needed.
>
> Well dang, you made me think of another question. Have you used the
> GNU gettext(3) system? You mark your strings, they get collected into a
> file by automake, and you can provide a file that matches it for another
F> language.
>
> I've currently set up code for gettext, but haven't yet tried to do an
> actual translation.
>
> Right now, all my apps are console apps, and mostly use GNU/POSIX
> functions. Some support for locale and wide-characters using C++'s
> generic facilities. I still have a /lot/ to learn.

This is, of course, absolutely trivial in C too.

Simply replace all strings with message codes and insert a getMessage()
call for all msgcodes with the necessary elipses for text
substitution. getMessage does whatever it does (flat file, resource
file, db etc) based on locale of system OR (more better in some cases)
the selected locale for the individual application: Why is that a bonus?
Multi lingual call centers for example where the application can be
switched depending on the customer being dealt with.

Peter making a big thing out of a trivial issue as usual.

Linonut wrote:

> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> What I find the most useful feature (the language support) is basically
>> the same across the two versions
>>
>> With just 4 lines you can make apps multi-language aware, loading the
>> translated strings from the *.qm file done with QTLinguist depending on
>> the locale used on the system (I usually make it also setable via
>> arguments, to enable forcing of language)
>>
>> int main(int argc, char*argv[] ) {
>> QApplication app(argc, argv);
>>
>> QTranslator Translator;
>> QString filename = QString("qmfile_%1").arg(QLocale::system().name());
>> Translator.load(filename,qApp->applicationDirPath());
>> app.installTranslator(&Translator);
>>
>> MWindow* window = new MWindow;
>> window->show();
>> return app.exec();
>> }
>>
>> It really can't get any easier than that supporting basically any
>> language you want, and when the guy doing the translation got an
>> introduction of half an hour to QTLinguist you don't even need to do the
>> translation yourself or put translated strings into the app.
>> Usually I prefer getting the translated strings to check myself if they
>> really fit, as often the strings in foreign languages are a lot longer
>> than in english or german, but for simple formatted text that is not
>> needed.
>
> Well dang, you made me think of another question. Have you used the
> GNU gettext(3) system? You mark your strings, they get collected into a
> file by automake, and you can provide a file that matches it for another
> language.

That is (basically) the way QT does it, only more refined in QT.
QT employs a command "lupdate" which will read the source files of the
project and extract all strings, putting them into a XML file
This file is then processed by the QTLinguist tool

> I've currently set up code for gettext, but haven't yet tried to do an
> actual translation.

It works, it is just not on the same level as QT already is.
As I often need to do apps in a language I don't understand even a tiny
little bit (like finnish or russian, for example), I have to rely on the
translator guy to get it correctly. Tools which support that translation do
help very much in that case. GTK is not yet on the level QT provides.

As I don't mind doing all GUI code in C++ instead of C, the fact that QT
absolutely needs C++ is not a problem.
In the case when I do a server tool (for the online stuff we do), I will use
whatever fits the bill. That is often enough just plain old C

> Right now, all my apps are console apps, and mostly use GNU/POSIX
> functions. Some support for locale and wide-characters using C++'s
> generic facilities. I still have a /lot/ to learn.
>

QT by default uses Unicode, so translating into a foreign language is not
hampered in any way by Font problems. GTK is not as advanced in its Unicode
handling, making it less good for my needs than QT. But that is *my* needs,
others may have different ones and can live happily with GTK

--
99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.