On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> What are you comparing? LCL interfaces to qt and gtk or qt and gtk themself?
>
> I suppose the first.
I am comparing qt and gtk themselves. The example goes around lazarus,
but only because the only qt or gtk software that I develop is the
LC
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
wrote:
> Why "jump in quality"? Isn't the current LCL-Qt based on Qt 4.x The
> Qt 4.5 release will only make it more usable in a open-source /
> closed-source (licensing) term - that has nothing to do with quality.
I meant that today you cannot
> Why is that ? Is Qt so much better than GTK ?
In this part I was not talking about appearance, but as to quality
(amount of bugs) and easiness to developed. So, from the programmers
side, yes Qt is much better then Gtk. Comparing Qt to Gtk (from the
developer perspective) is like comparing a hor
2009/2/16 Vincent Snijders :
> I have a feeling something got lost in the translation from Portuguese
> to English or from English to Dutch in the next paragraph, because I
> don't understand your point.
Basically he said he was very disappointed by the Linux Lazarus 0.9.26
He probably installed
