Aniello Del Sorbo wrote: > > That makes full sense and I was expecting the switch over to Qt. > It's only a shame, for me, that this requires C++ (no idea to which extent).
I'm a novice C++ programmer with basic C skills and experience playing with OO langages over the years - I found it fairly simple to write a reasonable application in C++. I also found the Qt toolkit much easier to read and explore. From never using it before to writing a Qt version of pannable-area took me a few months. Before I learned Qt I learned C++/gtkmm and it was a little rough and undocumented - that was actually the motivation to learn a cleaner OO solution. In porting the Gtk app to Qt I practically replaced the widgets with the same text in camelCase and even the arguments were mostly the same. It was astonishing how similar that was. I doubt it's an automatable process but it's not as hard as, eg, a java swing re-write would be. Finally the Qt docs are really superb - and that makes a huge difference. http://doc.trolltech.com/4.5/index.html Obviously these are just my preferences :) Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote: > And each new languages need a manual custom binding to use QT because of > C++. The GObject model has been designed exactly to avoid a such big > wast of time. GObject allow automatic binding in any languages. This is > why GTK is technically superior to QT. GObject is a hug success in a lot > of very important libraries. Will this help? http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3878 David -- "Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..." _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
