RE: [gtkmm] Gtkmm or Qt?

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> From: Dr Mark H Phillips [mailto:mark austrics com au] 
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 17:39, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> > I believe he is a fool. Large parts of that article 
> actually agree with me.
> > Most imporantly, he has almost no knowledge of gtkmm 2. But 
> you can make up
> > your own mind.
> > 
> > All of this has been discussed thoroughly all over the net. 
> The thread here
> > is fairly representative:
> > 
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003-04-01-032-26-O
> P-DT-DV&tbovrm
> > ode=3#talkback_area
> 
> Thanks for this link.  It gives me a bit better idea of the issues. 
> There seem to be lots of minor ones, but two issues that seem more
> significant to me are:
> 
> 1. It would appear that Qt handles internationalization 
> support better.
> Now probably this would be better done as a separate library??  Does
> one exist or is one planned?

What do you need exactly?
glibmm will be a separate library for 2.4. For instance, it will then be
used by libxml++.

> 2. Laurent seems to think that the signals and slots 
> mechanism provided
> by MOC gives capability that the gtkmm library, libsigc++, doesn't or
> can't.  I don't know enough about these issues to be sure about who is
> right.  Certainly Trolltech think a template solution will never be
> as good.  On their web page:
> 
>  http://doc.trolltech.com/3.2/templates.html

I've given my opinion several times. I think it's nonsense. libsigc++ works
fine.

> Trolltech seem to be saying that
> runtime introspection allows GUIs to be generated and connected
> on-the-fly in a way which is impossible with a template slots and
> signals library. 

I see no great demand for it. I'm sure we could add that feature if somebody
wanted it.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com