OSNews

I agree with you, but I will still wait for 4.1 before I give it another go...

How so? I see the sycophants agree, but do you have any side-by-side comparisons?
(not to pick on you, but I see the same comment from the other side being immediately challenged :-)

Edited 2008-04-02 22:29 UTC

You can note the difference trying to develop an application for each platform, for example:

Windows Vista: The use of to many archaich techniques like Messages and heavy use of interfaces.

Mac OSX: It lacks in clarity of the framework, the use of objetive C doesn't help eather.

GNOME: Despite having many bindings, the lack of a central core of shared libraries is the weak point, the code has a high coupled level, they are getting better thougt.

KDE 4: Centralized and shared libraries with a loosely coupled framework that boost the code reuse, better architecture like MV.

Is just my experience as a programmer.

Uh, what? You don't have to code in MFC or the Win32 API on windows. If you find message maps archaic and bothersome, you can always find something else that scratches your itch. Even Qt.



Define lack of clarity? As far as I am concerned, the Mac as a platform provides a wide plethora of frameworks that are widely documented and intuitive to use. Of course, one mans intuitive is another mans nightmare so YMMV. However, I do agree that the choice of Objective-C is a strange one but once you get used to the syntax and terminology, you find that it is actually quite good.

Failing all that, you can still fall back to using other libraries like Qt to program on the Mac.

I understand that this is a KDE news item and as such the KDE centric users and developers will be out in force. Even so, there is no need to spread nonsense about other platforms just to make your own look better.

p.s. I use GNOME but I don't develop for it, so I'll leave that to some GNOME developer to argue the point with you.

Uhm, just because you agree about the technical merits of one piece of software compared to another does not make one a sycophant. Before calling some one a "a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite." (dictionary.com) try doing your own research and then give your arguments on why you disagree.

Either way, my preference is KDE, and I look forward to KDE 4.1, that's when I will make the switch from 3.5. The benefits?

Because of QT4, a lot of my favorite KDE apps will be fully functional on Windows, *nix's and OS X. That makes me very happy. Also, QT4's performance and memory footprint is much improved over previous versions, which is always a good thing.

Plasma is the GUI, and when 4.1 comes out, it will mean a much more versatile and customizable desktop, which, in my opinion has always been one of KDE's strengths over it's competitors. Compared to KDE, Windows and Gnome's customization potential is only superficial, and OS X's is almost non-existent. (I expect to get modded to hell for that statement)

Kwin, the KDE window manager, now supports compositing, which is a godsend, as Compiz can be a real pain in the butt to get working. It's gotten a lot better, but not having to change your WM to use compositing is a big win for KDE, especially in light of the competitions heavy requirements (I'm looking right at you Vista).

Solid is the hardware API that abstracts the underlying hardware APIs (Hal, Bluez and so forth) into one developer friendly and sane framework. Because of Solid, The underlying hardware technologies can be swapped out and replaced with new technology, without breaking KDE apps.

That's just the 4 major ones IMO, there is a lot more in KDE4, and when KDE 4.1 comes out, I think it's going to kick ass.

Edited 2008-04-02 22:54 UTC

Uhm, just because you agree about the technical merits of one piece of software compared to another does not make one a sycophant. Before calling some one a "a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite." (dictionary.com) try doing your own research and then give your arguments on why you disagree.
"

Calm down and chill out. I never said I disagreed. I asked for justification, because the opinion stated was not substantiated (it since has been). The'sycophants' I referred to were those who voted up a comment that came across as mere opinion without facts. I see many posts on KDE4 threads, singing it's praises over other development platforms without little explanation why it's better.

Ironic that you ask me to give arguments, when that's what I was asking the OP to do.

For the record, I developed for a long time with Qt3 and 4 on five different platforms and loved it because of it's clean, consistent object model, great documentation and value of pragmatism over 'standard practice'. It also is the best C++ UI toolkit I have ever seen
I've seen a bit of the KDE libs, but not developed much with them.

That's not ironic, I wanted to know why you were calling people sycophants, without any valid reasons, and I still don't see any valid reason.



If that's the case, your original response was just trolling, and I have to stop feeding trolls. Sounds like you already knew the reasons, and if that is so, modding the OP up would have been the right response.

No mod down from me, sir, and I use OSX as my main desktop, along with Kubuntu and Windows. OSX isn't very configurable for looks, but its keystroke configuration is actually the best I've seen, and I'm hoping to see certain key aspects of the dock copied.

The main thing I like about the dock in OSX is this: just because you close all windows for an application doesn't mean it's closed. It's still in the dock and running. You can Command-Tab to it at any time and nearly always, Command-N will bring up a new window.

The next benefit? Command-Tab isn't switch between windows, it's switch between applications. Command-` lets you switch between the windows of the currently running application. I started using OSX 2.5 years ago after a lot of time in Windowmaker and KDE in Linux and some Windows purgatory too, and I don't know why everyone's copying the Windows Alt-tab now.

KDE is the most configurable, as well as it should be, but the moment it can be configured to imitate this one piece of hard-set OSX behavior, I will be far more comfortable with it.

I agree that OS X APIs are at least as good if not better than the ones available in KDE from the perspective of quickly developing powerful applications. However OS X APIs are only available on OSX, which makes them less than useful for anyone wanting to use more than that platform. For my own apps I want them to be usable no matter what platform I happen to be on. That unfortunately rules out anything done purely for OSX (as well as other nice APIs like the .NET class library, which contrary to all the hype out there, is not even close to cross platform).

I agree that OS X APIs are at least as good if not better than the ones available in KDE from the perspective of quickly developing powerful applications. However OS X APIs are only available on OSX, which makes them less than useful for anyone wanting to use more than that platform. For my own apps I want them to be usable no matter what platform I happen to be on. That unfortunately rules out anything done purely for OSX (as well as other nice APIs like the .NET class library, which contrary to all the hype out there, is not even close to cross platform). "

Pitch in and help everyone finish GNUstep. There are plenty of SoC projects to go around.

I could, but why bother when Qt/KDE gives me the same quality programming environment for no work? I am inherently lazy after all..

Edited 2008-04-03 03:39 UTC

So use Qt on OS X and Windows? I fail to see how that is a big issue in and of itself? Everything people have been saying in this thread about portability, extendability, etc has less to do with KDE and more to do with Qt.

KDE 4 is a promising release. It is able to stand on its own merits. Why do people feel the need to do a crapper on other platforms in an attempt to boost their own preferred platform?

I do.



Neither do I, you misread this thread somewhere. The point of discussion was Qt/KDE Vs APIs on OSX, and while OSX is nice, if you don't want to be constrained to one platform you can't really use it.



Absolutely, but that's a technical detail. Doesn't change the conclusion.



Go back and read this thread again, its not about dumping on other platforms at all. Just pointing out the strengths of the framework.

I think it's quiet a innovative way having icon controls around them and the plasmoids, but as I remember the box only stayed in 4.0 (I'm sure the alphas/beta had them appear when you mouse over).

I've tried KDE 4.0.3 and it's much faster and less buggy for sure, I like the monthly releases which I try each time via Ubuntu repos. I can see the potential in KDE 4.x and 4.1 looks promising indeed.

Edited 2008-04-02 22:46 UTC

Why not right-click? Think touchscreen interfaces ... as I read somewhere mentioned (and attributed to aaron siego) that its tough to right-click on touchscreen (not the exact words.)

"Why not right-click? Think touchscreen interfaces ... as I read somewhere mentioned (and attributed to aaron siego) that its tough to right-click on touchscreen (not the exact words.)"

I can agree with that to an extent, the problem is how many touch screen PC's are really out there? Very few compared to normal laptops or desktops that do not have touch screens. If touch screens were extremely popular I would agree wholeheartedly, fact of the matter they are not as they are a niche product.

Touch screens are now everywhere, phones, tablet pcs and even in cameras.

And since plasma is portable to any of them we may say is touchscreen-ready.

Edited 2008-04-03 00:04 UTC

"Touch screens are now everywhere, phones, tablet pcs and even in cameras.

And since plasma is portable to any of them we may say is touchscreen-ready."

I should have been more specific. Not very common in the personal computer world, as Tablet PC's are a niche. Phones, Camera's and Kiosks do not fall into that definition IMO. I can easily see a use for Plasma in those devices, no argument there, I would just like to be able to turn it off since it annoys me.

If you use Kubuntu and want it to become better (especially in regard to KDE 4), then please vote for it at http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/478/. Unfortunately, this is being actively voted down right now, and there is only one full time developer working on Kubuntu (Jon Riddell). Note that he's been fantastic at maintaining Kubuntu, but he's still only one guy. If enough positive votes come in, then maybe Canonical will see a good reason to invest in another developer (at least that's my hope).

Try openSUSE. Because SUSE was a KDE supporter from the first hour their KDE integration is IMHO one of the best.

But... it is slow, last time I tried, and the default desktop has way too many programs installed, I really like what canonical does with KDE, but kubuntu doesn't have yast, so well it's difficult to say which one I'd prefer, I suppose I'll try 11.0 again, hoping it gained speed, and that it installs all drivers (including proprietary ones, I didn't buy hardware to not use it, just because the drivers are closed source :s).

KDE four live, you can choose between 4.1pre or 4.0.3 stable (4.1pre is much much better)

Thanks

If you're comparing Carbon to KDE I'll grant KDE has a leg up.

If you want to compare the dynamic frameworks of OS X Cocoa to KDE you show me that not only did you never develop for NeXTstep/Openstep, work in this industry when OOA/OOD was being called a pipe dream and all we need is Procedural Programming and C, and that you aren't following closely how the industry adopts more and more of Apple's Development efforts.

Trolltech was smart to start a 64 bit Cocoa Qt. GTK+ was smart to focus on WebKit.

Adobe is going to have to finally bite the bullet and go Cocoa, along with Microsoft like Intuit has done.

In a year we're going to see LLVM vs. GCC wars on this board and everyone's going to be pissed instead of being thrilled with competition.

I was trying to write a reply to your post and then I realized that you provided no solid or substantial points for be to begin arguing with.

How is code reuse encouraged by KDE and not other platforms? If you call KDE specific APIs, you are going to have to rewrite them when you port. This is the same on all platforms. If you are coding in Qt, by definition your code is going to be cross platform until you start calling native libraries. This applies to the Mac, Windows and any other platform Qt runs on.

Reading your posts on this topic, I'm guessing that you're saying KDE apps are portable and how KDE has the best libraries boils down to one factor: Qt. Incidentally, Qt runs just as well on other platforms.

Looks like I haven't explained my self as I should.

There is an abism between a toolkit and the architecture aplied to that toolkit. Qt is not the relevant part here, wxWidgets can do most of the same, but is not about the toolkit and not about the API, is about the architecture you aply to all of them in conjntion to work together.

You have API, great, how can the API work towards my needs? will the API allow me to apply certains patterns that in some time will allow me to get rid of just some parts and allow me to exchange some parts for another ones easily w/o the need to start everything from the beginning?

You see? That's the question that modern architecture asks and that is what Windows 7 will be and KDE is doing now.

The toolkit is just a smart part of a whole.

Well, concerning Windows 7 I think my crystal ball shows me quite clearly what is going to happen:
The techies who really know their stuff will want to make it this way, but then the marketeers will begin their compatibility-dance, and most of the cleanlyness will evaporate.