tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12366865.post1164539176261546857..comments2024-01-16T14:13:50.160+01:00Comments on all mine!: clutter/Qt/Arthur etcJos Poortvliethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05243886270488333877noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12366865.post-5454670946514208772009-08-07T23:06:19.671+02:002009-08-07T23:06:19.671+02:00Good question, I've been wondering that myself...Good question, I've been wondering that myself. And very nice to see the answers here. It'd be great if someone would write a blog entry (on planet) about Qt and clutter, or more specifically, what KDE's answer to a gnome-clutter desktop environment would be.Khashayarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02512164051508876756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12366865.post-85640443357387528762009-08-07T15:33:31.490+02:002009-08-07T15:33:31.490+02:00The comparison isn't between Clutter and Arthu...The comparison isn't between Clutter and Arthur, it's either between Clutter and QGraphicsView, or Cairo and Arthur.<br /><br />Some of the main differences between Clutter and QGraphicsView, as far as I can tell:<br /><br />- Clutter handles 2D objects in a 3D space, whereas QGraphicsView uses 2D objects in a 2D space -- albeit you can transform them in all kinds of ways to make them <i>look</i> 3D (see also: WolfenQt).<br /><br />- Clutter is completely tied to OpenGL; it renders via OpenGL, and nothing else, whereas QGraphicsView has multiple backends (afaik, by default it renders into a QWidget with Arthur which in turn uses x11, raster painting, opengl, or whatever, depending on Qt's graphics system, or you can make it render into a QGLWidget to force OpenGL). On the one hand, Clutter has better support for advanced OpenGL things like shaders; on the other hand, you can use QGraphicsView both with OpenGL and without it.<br /><br />- QGraphicsView is tied to Qt much more closely than Clutter is to GTK+. This means that on the one hand, Qt has better integration with the various other things in Qt; while on the other hand, you can use Clutter without GTK+ if you like (indeed, you can use Clutter-Qt if you don't mind the API mismatch).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12366865.post-43825214835037667732009-08-07T09:56:56.376+02:002009-08-07T09:56:56.376+02:00The main strong point of clutter compared to Qt...The main strong point of clutter compared to Qt's canvas (until 4.6) was that clutter has already an animation framework, which is going to be fixed with the introduction of Kinetics.Cyrille Bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04348789443714255147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12366865.post-26185986659146879642009-08-07T09:27:26.182+02:002009-08-07T09:27:26.182+02:00maybe this will bring at least 'some' enli...maybe this will bring at least 'some' enlightenment: http://moblinzone.com/top_stories/481/46/37industrie13noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12366865.post-51934113923116290032009-08-07T03:03:40.672+02:002009-08-07T03:03:40.672+02:00AFAIK, the problem was that GTK+ didn't have a...AFAIK, the problem was that GTK+ didn't have a proper canvas widget (like Qt's QGraphicsView), and therefore Clutter was born.<br />I don't know of any pros it has that QGraphicsView doesn't have.sandsmarkhttp://iskrembilen.comnoreply@blogger.com