You sound clueless. Every cross-platform toolkit ever created suffer from "not-really-native widgets" problem.
You've surely followed the thread, haven't you? Kry mentioned various times that he critizes QT for not being native and prefers wx because it uses a native look (i.e. GTK2 on *nix, Cacoa/Carbon on Mac and MFC (or however it's called nowadays) on Windows.)
QT used to
emulate the look of the platforms instead of
using the native toolkit. Whilst it will still use its own look on *nix (QT is after all an established toolkit on *nix, besides GTK2), it uses a native look on Windows and Mac in recent versions.
I will ignore your "I wouldn't use it" due lack of technical argument.
There is no argument, only my personal opinion after using it for a little while. It just doesn't fit my personal preference. That's why I wrote in the first sentence that I only state my personal opinion, because I know that all of you think different. I wouldn't use C# or Java either - just because I don't like them, not because they are bad.
What's "minimalistic" anyway?
Hideously complex and hard to design.
To explain it very shortly: The application is divided into little parts, each one doing only one little job (here's the minimalistic) and giving/receiving tasks from/to others. Add the latest buzzwords like "pluggable" and "multithreaded" and you get a "minimalistic" design similar to a microkernel, which is complex to design, but once (well) designed very maintainable.
NOTE: This will never be done and I couldn't design it (yet). It is OT anyway, so you don't have to tell me how stupid the idea is.
(Note: A smiley indicates that I'm not entirely serious.)
Extremely wrong. Non-standard libraries are out of discussion. Static link is bad idea anyway.
Correction: In
your opinion this is extremely wrong.
In my opinion this is a nice way of getting all necessary cross-platform operations of the gui (file access and network) with only a small overhead in terms of binary size and without having to load (and install) megabytes of libraries where you only use a small part of it. I like the design of POCO, so it's a personal preference thingy again.
Yet another bad idea.
Nope, personal preference. "i" and "personally" indicate this pretty clearly.
I'm well aware that aMule won't use it and I know your reasons to use C# as well - and I can comprehend them.
Sorry, but if you have no knowledge on the subject, why enter discussion?
I obviously love to hear myself talk. Although the only thing I actually hear is my keyboard.
Seriously: I said "not sufficient", not "no knowledge".
I'm well aware of my limitations and I use the opportunity to learn.
mulinex:This thread is about the QT gui. When do we start, and wuischke, will you help us though to short time?
I will try to help you, but be aware that I have little free time since university started and that I'm not "fluent" in QT and the design of aMule and EC.
