Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Performance questions, -inline, ...
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@y...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Performance questions, -inline, ...

> > IMHO, the latter is now a few years ahead of GTK, and is only gaining the
> > advantage as time passes. 
> May I ask what features Qt has that GTK does not?

Though some would argue this is a matter of taste, Qt feels like a
much more elegant API.  And yes, feature-wise is also a far more
comprehensive library.  It includes modules not only for the expected
GUI widgets, but also for database connectivity, XML processing,
network programming, easy integration with openGL, generation and
visualisation of SVG and PDF, etc, etc.  Moreover, the various modules
are well integrated and go well together.  To achieve the same degree
of functionality in Gtk-land, you need to mix in several independent
libraries (Gtk+Cairo+...), which not always feel like part of a coherent

You could of course argue that in the Ocaml world we have better solutions
for some of the modules present in Qt.  Ocamlnet is top-notch, and the
facilities for XML processing (such as Cduce and allies) are so good you
probably will find the similarly-purposed Qt modules unnecessary.
Nevertheless, just the graphics facilities present in Qt would more
than justify Ocaml bindings.

Incidentally, the Haskell folks are working on bindings:
Does Haskell's FFI make this an easier task than Ocaml's?

Dario Teixeira

Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good