On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:44 AM, SMC.Collins <smc.collins@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > > > I try to stay out of these conversations since I have not actually > contributed any code to Haiku, and I have never used QT in any of my > projects (because I don't like it). > I don't like QT because its humongous and ugly and slow. When I worked at > Worldgate Communications, our product used QT for all its graphics (aside > from the actual video streams), and it sucked, our GUI was so slow that it > was almost unusable, because it was running on QT. I just don't like QT. I > take issue with most graphical systems actually, among the good ones are > the Linux framebuffer, SDL, Haiku's GUI. > > > Most of the reason I am interested in Haiku is its graphical system, just > because it isn't X, and doesn't rely on GTK or QT or any crap like that. If > Haiku used QT, it would lose much of its appeal to me. Not all appeal, but > a lot of it. > > > QT is a giant, but not one that you can use to stand on its shoulders and > reach higher, just a fat ugly one that takes up too much space. > > --PHil > > > I have been using QT applications on Haiku for some time now, even the > qupzilla browser. Slow ? I haven't noticed any perceptible change in > responsiveness between the native guis and the qt gui. In fact qupzilla > completely blows webpositive out of the water in terms of performance.Most > of this is due to feature completeness, but I use it becuase its more > capable. It's just a bit crashy. the whole QT intall is 25mb, thats not > very "fat" as it were imho. > > ???? > > > Sean > Like I said, I have never used it on a desktop machine, only on an embedded device, so I could be wrong about its speed on desktop machines. However, 25 mb is huge, saying that that is no "fat" is quite a silly statement, I don't even think GTK is that big, and GTK is also huge.