>>>2. How does the Qt toolkit compare to Microsoft's MFC, Borland's OWL,
>>>OSF/Motif and Sun OpenLook ?
>> Motif is much better. Note that Qt doesn't yet have generalized
>> 'manager' widgets, for one.
>I've got to take issue with that. Motif does have more in the way of
>manager widgets, but Qt does now have 2 built-in managers: BoxLayout
>and GridLayout classes.
Yah? Good deal! Let me check my Qt documentation here. . . sorry,
I'm not impressed. Take a look at Xmt (a shareware Motif add-on) and
the Layout widget. Now *THAT* is impressive.
Quote:>Qt is also several orders of magnitude more elegant in it design than
And my opinion is the exact opposite, I consider Qt to be
(currently, anyway) hacky and rough. X+Xt+Motif have had just way more
time to mature.
Quote:>Qt is free for X11, as long as you're writing free software.
Note all of the restrictions.
Quote:>Qt is written in C++ (though there's an alpha-level Perl binding now
>as well), and as such doesn't suffer from the horrendous complexity
>of Motif, which attempts to implement an object-oriented system in a
The 'horrendous complexity' of Motif isn't based in C, it is based in
the extreme flexibility of the product.
Quote:>Ever tried subclassing a Motif widget?
No big deal for me.
Quote:>Qt applications feel decidedly faster than Motif applications.
Not for me. A Qt application that is as flexible and configurable
as the equivalent Motif program is, in fact, much slower. Note
that Qt applications that do *NOT* implement the level of flexibility
that Xt+Motif gives are going to be faster, but if you do that, you
aren't making a fair comparison.
Quote:>Qt is easier to learn than Motif
I disagree. Qt with such primitive managers is very difficult to
use, compared to Motif. And requires much more coding. Manager
widgets are not an option, nor are they really an add-on. They
are a requirement.
Quote:>(as long as you're happy with C++).
Snort! Different argument. I'll let it go with: I'm *NOT* happy
Quote:>Qt provides a richer set of classes than Motif, including non-visual
>components such as strings, containers like lists, queues & stacks,
>and a very useful Painter class, which gives much more powerful drawing
>capabilities than plain Xlib.
Because Qt is designed to be a cross platform *APPLICATIONS* development
enviroment. Motif is a GUI system, nothing more.
If what you are looking for is a portable APPLICATIONS development
enviroment, then Qt *REALLY* sucks! OPENStep is the much better
choice, having much more, much better support for 'non-visual' classes.
Quote:>Qt is portable to Windows (though some might not consider that to be an
So? OPENStep is also portable to Windows. And you get to use Objective C
instead of (shudder!) C++.
Quote:>Note: I don't hold shares in TrollTech, I'm just very impressed with Qt.
>Their web page is http://www.troll.no
For a restricted class of problems, Qt makes sense. But for the most
powerful and most flexible GUI development under X, Motif is much
For the most portable and powerful application development enviroment,
Note that the original poster asked for opinions. Opinion isn't really
arguable. It just is.