QT compiled size

[Dan Lund]

On Nov 29, 2007 12:45 PM, Chris Gehlker <canyonrat at mac.com> wrote:

> I'm totally confused. My understanding is that QT is a pretty high
> level GUI library that indeed depends only on X in the Linux version.
> If that's true it must do something window managerish i.e. it  must
> contain all the functionality that is included in a GUI but  is not
> included in a basic window server.

That's what Xlib is, the X/Window library collection that displays all
that good stuff, and QT provides the motif.  It does the same as
Motif/Lesstif, just with programmable configurability.
It's not terribly high-level, it's just a C++ class set, basically.
In the end, it's still C++.  Though i have to admit, I'm a huge fan of
QT programming structure.

> On OS X it does  interface with a
> window manager so it would need less functionality and hence be
> smaller. What am I missing.
> >

I haven't used QT on OS/X but from my reading about it, it interfaces
with the Cocoa libraries.
That should only save like... 50mb maybe.  Perhaps the OS/X version
has less stuff to it?  (I mean, stripped down to just libraries and
such with no tools, etc)

> Ruby and Python don't  have built in GUIs ala Java. Programmers who
> want to write portable GUI apps in these languages need to bind to a
> GUI library. A typical Ruby installation will have bindings for QT,
> Tcl/Tk and a few others.

Hmm i didn't realize many people did graphics apps in ruby or python.
I guess you have a point if someone was using those two languages for
a graphics app and wanted it to be portable across *nix distributions.
 Same with Perl too, or C++ for that matter, or insert other language
that links to QT :)

-- 
Thanks,
Dan Lund

"The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time,
somewhere, someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those
people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the
job done."