undefined

points

[-]

I think the fact that you listed off five toolkits for three different OSes, all of which are "that OS's own toolkit," might point at the root of the problem here.

by DiabloD310 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Windows is so fucking old that I think it has a right to try again.

And, btw, the reason Microsoft even bothered is because (dun dun dunnnn) lots of internal apps at Microsoft were written with Qt, not MFC, and leadership got pissed when they realized (they couldn't tell the difference, since Qt does the native++ technique).

As for Linux, yeah, thats a shitshow. Qt was closed source, Linux isn't, so they made Gtk, but then Qt got open sourced, and then the Gtk guys just kept going. Qt can mimic Gtk3/4 themes and already uses 100% native rendering (same APIs Gtk does).

People keep writing Gtk apps for some reason, and I don't know why. I can get the C++ hate, but Qt has the cleanest C++ I've ever seen.

by zerr6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Gtk is hardware (GPU) accelerated, while Qt Widgets is software/CPU-rendered.

by DiabloD33 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I notice you say, specifically, Qt Widgets.

Yes, classic Qt Widgets still doesn't allow for hardware acceleration.

However, the majority of Qt UIs you deal with are in Qt Quick, which is hardware accelerated. Almost all of KDE is Qt Quick, for example.

by zerr1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes, I was considering C++ (and C) desktop UI toolkits. Unlike Qt Widgets, QML/JavaScript is a horrible mess and not suitable for desktop software.