From: Jason Sewall Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:13:03 GMT Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] ugit: a pyqt-based git gui // was: Re: If you would write git from scratch now, what would you change? Message-ID: <31e9dd080712112113u44b30c62ja012951fba958c5d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20071212041002.GN14735@spearce.org> On Dec 11, 2007 11:10 PM, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Jason Sewall wrote: > > Anyway, ugit is very good for a first draft; its text display beats > > whats in git-gui in a big way (and I would *hope* qt4 would beat > > Tcl/Tk at that at least). > > Are you just using the wrong fonts under git-gui? I mean both > Tk and qt4 are drawing text through your windowing system, from > the same pool of font files... if qt4 can draw nice text then > so can Tk, right? I don't know much about graphical toolkits and the like, but I think that the more modern ones have fancy features like antialiasing and subpixel rendering, which makes a big difference when you're working on a laptop with a tiny screen. Take a look for yourself: http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/492/comparejd6.png They are obviously using different fonts there (because I can't figure out what font ugit is using) but there is a difference in rendering quality to be sure. The qt stuff fits better with the rest of my system better too (even though I'm using gnome) - it's entirely the result of Tk being lightweight and a million years old, when UI conventions were different (like every menu being detachable, and antique scrollbars). I'm not here to start a toolkit flame war (we had a toolkit dogpile on the list last week, I think) I'm just pointing out that Tk is from a different era. I use git-gui and gitk for my git graphical needs because they rock and at the end of the day, the fonts and antialiasing aren't that big of a deal, especially since I'm usually doing quick scans and searches over the information those tools display, not reading novels in them. Jason