blocks|key|3468538|text|你考虑过wxWidgets吗。它也是跨平台的，像QT一样的C%2B%2B和QT不同的是使用本机控件，并且不需要任何框架就可以像.NET一样运行。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3468539|.NET和mono几乎是一回事，如果你写的是简单的基于用户的应用程序，没有太多的系统或网络编程，.NET应该是最好的。|3468540|如果性能是应用程序的关键方面，那么很多人使用QT、wxWidgets等C%2B%2B库。|3468541|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$]]

Have you considered wxWidgets. Its also cross platform, C++ like QT and uses native controls unlike QT, and don't require any framework to run like .NET.

.NET and mono are almost the same thing, If you are writing simple user based application with not much system or network programming, .NET should be the best.

If performance is critical aspect of the application lot of people uses C++ libraries like QT, wxWidgets.

blocks|key|410986|text|.NET不支持跨平台。编写代码并使其在MONO和.NET上有效地工作是非常痛苦的，个人使用.NET而不是TCL/Tk或Qt或Java+Swing的原因是因为快速应用程序开发。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|410987|RAD几乎不可能与任何其他现有的框架一起使用。RAD在简单的情况下是可能的，但你最后一次编写具有简单用例的基于业务的应用程序是什么时候？|410988|GUI工具包通常很难使用，因为您需要了解基础知识。基础是数据绑定、裁剪、刷新、布局管理器和事件处理。所有这些概念对于普通开发人员来说都是困难的。原因是，它的大部分都被更多的现代工具包抽象掉了。例如，使用Java+Swing，我不需要知道任何关于裁剪或刷新的知识，因为他们为我“神奇地”做到了这一点。当某些东西不能神奇地刷新时会发生什么，这种情况就会提出一个几乎不可能的解决方案。然后，代码就会变得越来越复杂。|410989|.NET通常被许多UI开发人员使用，因为扩展它非常简单。创建一个扩展方法来扩展控件非常简单。使用.NET实体框架创建绑定数据的方法甚至变得更加简单。然而，使用这个RAD工具是有代价的，那就是它不是平台独立的。|410990|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|I|$]]

.NET is not for cross platform. It is very painful to code and make it work effectively for MONO and .NET. The reason why individuals go with .NET more than TCL/Tk or Qt or Java Swing is because of Rapid Application Development.

RAD is virtually impossible with any of the other frameworks that exist. RAD is possible on simple cases, but when was the last time you wrote a business based application that had simple use cases. 

GUI toolkits in general are difficult to work with because you need to understand the basics. The basics being data binding, clipping, refreshing, layout managers and event handling. All of these concepts are difficult for average developers. The reason being is that most of it is being abstracted away with more of the modern toolkits out there. For instance, with Java Swing I do not need to know anything about clipping or refreshing since they do it "magically" for me. What happens in the case of when something does not refresh magically, that situation then presents a virtually impossible solution. The code then becomes exponentially more complex.

.NET is typically used by many UI developers because extending it is very simple. Creating an extension method to extend a control is very easy. Creating a method to bind data is even becomming more simple with .NET entity framework. There is a cost to use this RAD tool though, and that is that it is not platform independent.

blocks|key|3255380|text|对于跨平台(和独特的平台)，我会选择Qt，因为它比Mono和Windows.Forms更干净，使用MVC模式，所有的应用程序都更容易扩展和修改|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3255381|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

For cross-platform (and unique platform) I would go to Qt because it's more clean than Mono and Windows.Forms and with the MVC pattern all the application is more easy to expand and modify

blocks|key|410992|text|也许你可以用一种可移植的语言/框架来编写大部分的应用程序，并为你计划支持的每个操作系统编写一个单独的“图形界面皮肤”？当然，这种策略在某些情况下可能工作得很好，但在许多其他情况下可能会严重失败。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|410993|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

Perhaps you can write most of the application in a portable language/framework, and write a separate "graphical interface skin" for each operating system you plan to support? That strategy of course may work well in some cases, but may fail horribly in many others.

blocks|key|410995|text|我正在使用Qt4进行跨平台开发，并且对它非常满意。部署工作很好(至少如果你静态链接Qt，这一点都不难)，API真的很好而且一致，Qt设计器允许快速开发GUI部分，所以人们可以专注于真正的逻辑。signal和slot的概念也是我习惯后真正喜欢的东西。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|410996|根据我的经验，部署wxWidgets比较困难(在我的例子中，由于对GTK的依赖，特别是Linux，对Mac一无所知)。|410997|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

I'm using Qt4 for cross platform development and are quite happy with it. Deployment works fine (at least if you link Qt statically, which isn't hard at all), the API is really nice and consistent and Qt Designer allows fast development of the GUI parts so one can concentrate on the real logic. The signal and slot concept is also something I really like after getting used to it.

From my experience deployment with wxWidgets deployment is harder (in my case it was specifically Linux due to the dependency on GTK, no idea about Mac).

blocks|key|3468613|text|您会选择Mono+(也许还有C#)进行跨平台开发，原因与选择Java或Python语言的原因相同。这些语言在虚拟机上运行，如果您仔细选择库和设计代码，它将跨平台工作(无需重新编译)。本地语言(如C、C%2B%2B)确实有标准，因此该语言在多个平台上是相同的，但您使用的编译器设置和库可能不是跨平台的(例如，进程、网络等)。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3468614|除了技术问题之外，熟悉跨平台框架还可以节省时间。例如，学习GUI库可能需要几周或几个月的时间。如果所有目标上的API都是相同的，那么显然可以节省时间。|3468615|Qt4设计良好，文档齐全，并附带了一些有用的、可靠的工具。wxWidgets正在变得庞大，有几十个小部件，其中一些你永远不会用到。Qt具有更少的更灵活的小部件。我过去经常使用wx，但由于LGPL许可证，良好的文档，设计器，PyQt，新的集成开发环境和不断增长的用户基础，我现在是一个Qt转换。|3468616|Qt和wxWidgets都有Python绑定(即PyQt和wxPython)，因此您可以使用这些库编写跨平台的图形用户界面代码。对于Mono来说，这是更棘手的，但有GTK#和Qyoto。我还没有尝试过这两种方法，但它们似乎已经成熟到可以使用的程度了(例如，参见MonoDevelop)。|3468617|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|I|$]]

You would pick Mono (and perhaps C#) for cross platform development for the same reason that someone would pick Java or Python. These languages run on a virtual machine and if you are careful choosing libraries and designing code it will work cross platform (without recompilation). Native languages (like C, C++) do have standards so the language is the same on multiple platforms, but the compiler settings and libraries you use may not be cross platform (e.g. processes, networking, etc). 

Besides the technical issues, the familiarity of a cross platform framework saves time. E.g. learning a GUI library can take weeks/months. You're obviously going to save time if the API is the same on all targets. 

Qt4 is well designed, well documented and comes with some useful, solid tools. wxWidgets is becoming massive with dozens of widgets, some of which you'll never use. Qt has fewer widgets that are more flexible. I used to use wx quite a lot but I'm a Qt convert now because of LGPL license, good docs, the designer, PyQt, the new IDE and growing user base.

Both Qt and wxWidgets have Python bindings (i.e. PyQt and wxPython) so you could write cross platform GUI code using these libraries. For Mono it is more tricky but there is GTK# and Qyoto. I haven't tried either of these but they seem to be getting to a point where they are mature enough to used (e.g. see MonoDevelop).

blocks|key|414442|text|这里还有一个你没有提到的选择，我没有注意到这里提到的，但是Lazarus是跨平台的，并且随着它的发展，它正在变得越来越成熟。当然，就像用Qt编写的东西一样，你必须为特定的平台编译它。在我的例子中，我在一个运行在Mac、Linux和Windows上的项目中成功地使用了Lazarus。Lazarus是一个很好的RAD工具，Object+Pascal在我写的大多数东西上都能很好地工作。Lazarus是提高应用速度的一个很好的选择。它可以与用c/c%2B%2B编写的软件相比较。我不打算费心去支持这一点，有案例研究，如果需要的话，你可以自己做测试。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|414443|我对使用MonoDevelop在c#中编码的印象是库方面的，特别是html和音频方面有一点挑战。我只接触了几个月的c#/MonoDevelop，所以我对整个工具包还是相当陌生的。我猜由于它是托管代码，所以需要付出一定的速度代价。同样，我认为研究表明，与c#/.NET代码相比，仅编译的代码通常具有速度优势。|414444|当然，另一种选择是Java。我在那里没有做太多的工作，但它确实很麻烦，而且工作得很好，同样，我预计Java代码会比只编译的代码慢，比如c/c%2B%2B/Pascal。|414445|我想到的另一个选择是Eiffel，它有三个主要平台的编译器。这些天我没怎么用它，但我喜欢玩它的时候。ymmv|414446|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/|1|http://www.eiffel.com/developers/^0|T|7|0|0|0|0|A|6|1|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|T|8|@]|9|@$A|U|B|V|1|W]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|X|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|Y|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|Z|8|@]|9|@$A|10|B|11|1|12]]|C|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|13|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|K|$L|$5|M|N|O|C|$P|Q]]|R|$5|M|N|O|C|$P|S]]]]

Here is another option which you do not mention, and I didn't notice mentioned here, but <a href="http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/" rel="nofollow">Lazarus</a> is crossplatform, and is becoming more mature as it moves forward. Of course, like something written in Qt you would have to compile it for specific platforms. In my case, I've used Lazarus successfuly in a project that runs on Mac OSX, Linux, and Windows. Lazarus is a good RAD tool, and Object Pascal works well for most things I've written. Lazarus is a good option for application speed. It compares well to software written in c/c++. I'm not going to bother to back that up, there are case studies, and you can do your own testing if you have need to.

My impression of coding in c# using MonoDevelop has been that library-wise, specifically html, and audio a bit challenging. I've only been playing with c#/MonoDevelop for a few months, so I'm still quite new with the whole kit. I would guess that there is a bit of a speed price to pay since it is managed code. Again, I think research would suggest that compiled-only code would more often than not have a speed advantage over c#/.NET code.

Of course another option would be Java. I haven't done as much there, but it certainly is ubuiquitous, and does work well, again I would expect that Java code would be slower than compiled-only code, such as c/c++/Pascal.

One other option that comes to mind which has compilers for the three main platforms is <a href="http://www.eiffel.com/developers/" rel="nofollow">Eiffel</a>. I haven't been doing much with it these days, but I liked it when I did play with it. ymmv

OK, this is minefield, but trying to understand why one would pick .NET (or equivalently Mono) for cross-platform development over the other toolkit is difficult without experience in the both. 

For programmers who may have used both, what features would be missed or desired? Conversely, what would a user of one find missing from the other in terms of paradigm or some other aspect? There is a lot to be said of either toolkit, but comments from someone who has used both would be valuable.

Here are some related questions on the topic:

<ul>
<li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/610/gui-programming-apis">GUI APIs</a></li>
<li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/183336/what-was-the-funnest-programming-challenge-you-were-ever-tasked-with">programming challenge</a></li>
<li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/123012/do-you-use-qt-and-why-do-you-use-it">do you use Qt?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/199604/gtk-or-qt-under-windows">GTK or Qt under Windows</a></li>
</ul>

Edit: Would using Mono only be a viable option if Windows was one of the targetted platforms?

.NET or Mono vs Qt, which one for cross-platform development?

集成开发环境

虚拟机

编译器

Windows

Python

Linux

Java

好吧，这是雷区，但是如果没有这两者的经验，试图理解为什么会选择.NET (或者等效的Mono)而不是其他工具包来进行跨平台开发是很困难的。对于可能同时使用了这两种功能的程序员来说，会遗漏或需要哪些功能？相反，一个用户会发现另一个用户在范例或其他方面缺少了什么？关于这两个工具包都有很多要说的，但如果有人同时使用过这两个工...

问.NET或Mono vs Qt，哪一种用于跨平台开发？
EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问.NET或Mono vs Qt，哪一种用于跨平台开发？EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问.NET或Mono vs Qt，哪一种用于跨平台开发？
EN