[Kde-bindings] Stability of Qyoto and QyotoDevelop?

[IBBoard]

On 19/01/10 20:01, Richard Dale wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 January 2010 07:35:25 pm James Mansion wrote:
>> Arno Rehn wrote:
>>> Well, they can do that by hacking the code as well. If you install the
>>> .ui files system-wide, they can't edit them without root privileges
>>> anyway.
>>
>> Doesn't it make sense to install them as resources?
>>
>> I can't help feeling that the long period with the dormant qyoto web
>> site is going to take
>> a lot of effort to overcome.
> Well the web site might have been dormant, but we've been working on Qyoto and 
> Kimono all the time still.

Just to throw my 2 cents in, since this is all on a topic I'm interested
in at the moment (I would say "two penneth worth", but I suspect that's
a bit too British!)

I got a similar impression, which is why I hadn't investigated much.
GTK# is, obviously, quite well promoted, supported and displayed, since
Miguel is Gnome oriented and MonoDevelop uses GTK# for its UI. Qt always
gave the impression of the poor cousin by comparison - it looked like
someone had started the bindings because "we need .Net bindings to keep
up to date" but never quite finished the project, or decided that it
nearly worked but wasn't a maintainable method (like the early WinForms
work that used a glue layer to Wine).

That's not to say anything bad about the work itself - Smoke sounds like
quite a clever bit of kit from what I've read, and the bindings
obviously work if Eric can make a Jabber app and QyotoDevelop (even if
the latter is broken now) - but the PR definitely doesn't give the right
impression. Until I'd had enough of the ugly C-like API for GTK# then I
hadn't really considered Qt as a) it was non-native and b) it didn't
look anywhere near as mature. Hopefully with Qt4.5 and later I'm going
to be proved wrong...if only I could work out package numbers compared
to version numbers!

Good luck getting the coverage at FOSDEM :)