Juha, I test the 5 major widgetsets with several packages of custom controls that I've ported from Delphi and the Qt widgetset appears to be the least stable:
http://web.fastermac.net/~MacPgmr/OrphPort/OrphStatus.html#Status_Controls Thanks. -Phil ----- "Juha Manninen" <juha.manni...@phnet.fi> wrote: > On sunnuntai, 29. marraskuuta 2009 15:11:24 Vincent Snijders wrote: > > As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users. There > are > > more gtk2 issues than win32 issues, so we need to focus our > martekting > > (if any) more to the potential gtk2 developers (on linux) than on > the > > potential win32 developers. > > What about potential QT developers? > My suggestion is to make QT bindings the default recommended (on Linux > at > least), and consider stable QT bindings as a requirement for v1.0. > > This is a very realistic goal. I have compiled Lazarus for QT widgets > and it > works great. The bugs I found I have reported and Zeljan has already > fixed > them. Only some minor OpenSuse related issues remain. > I already know some places where QT bindings work better than GTK2 > bindings. > > QT has better design internally than GTK2. Many programmers have > stated that, > it is not only my opinion. > Thus I believe bindings for QT are easier to make. (This was an > "educated > guess", I don't know the details.) > > QT has lots of momentum now that Nokia bought it. There are more > potential QT > developers than GTK2 developers to attract if you advertise it as the > number > one stable binding. > > > Regards, > Juha Manninen > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Lazarus mailing list > Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org > http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus