thomas.cooksey at bt.com wrote:
> Has anyone seen these benchmarks: http://zrusin.blogspot.com/2006/10/benchmarks.html>> It compares Cairo (what GTK+ uses) against QT.  When it comes to rendering, I
> believe Qtopia & QT use the same code.  So ignoring X,
>> "Qt was respectively 7, 5 and 6 times faster.  Than Cairo in those plain tests." 
>> Now factor in the fact that QWS has a lot less overhead than X and a smaller
> memory footprint. 
>> Can someone _please_ give me a technical reason why they believe GTK+ is
> "better"?  The only arguments I've seen on this list are philosophical ones.  The
> only technical argument has been that you can run applications on the phone and
> have them appear on your desktop thanks to X. Surely there is a better reason? 
Portability would be the main reason.  I guess. 
But hey.  Philosophical reasons are damn good reasons if you have to work
with that stuff! 
Many people just cant stand the pain using C++. ;-) 
Someone had to make that choice.  And it was made.  I bet for good reasons. 
If you don't like it?  Ignore it.  Make it better.  Whatever. 
No one made a decision for _you_. 
My first thought when Nokia released Maemeo was they are stupid.  But
success proves them right.  When OpenMoKo started, these experience where
already made.  I would do the same today. 
Tilman Baumann