>Second of all, Qt apps are extremely well integrated on Windows, OSX and Linux alike.

I've never seen a QT app that I couldn't immediately tell apart from a native OS X/Cocoa app -- with the exception of Skype, which still doesn't look 100% native, but at least looks like it has a decent skin.

isn't it possible that you've seen qt apps you couldn't tell apart and therefore didn't realise they were built with qt?

Nope, I follow UI toolkits pretty closely and always try to find a native app for a given task first and foremost. After that QT is the second best option, GTK somewhat worse, and Swing and other monstrocities to be avoided at all costs.

It's not subtle either, these things always stick like sore thumbs -- only exception are some that only use very basic widgets and delegate 90% of the work to native ones (like native file open dialogs etc).

But let's see, if you have any

Transmission?

From their page: "The Mac OS X interface is written in Objective-C and uses Growl notifications and dock badging to keep you informed".

They have different OS X (Cocoa/Obj-C), QT and even GTK implementation of the UI.

Qt is great but it's a stretch to say it looks and feels completely native. Open Qt Creator on Windows and tell me it looks or feels anything like a native Windows application.

Qt looks pretty close if you stick to just the essential controls/widgets (text, buttons, text fields). Once you start using other stuff you can definitely tell it isn't a native application. That's not to say Qt isn't good. It's a great toolkit and far, far more complete and featureful than wxWidgets but that's comes as a trade off. The native-backed nature of wxWidgets means you are kind of working with the lowest common denominator a lot of the time which means you don't often get more sophisticated control/widget options. You also have to deal with more bugs between the platforms whereas you rarely have to with Qt.

You have to decide if you want a big, powerful toolkit with commercial backing (and a pretty hefty licensing fee for commercial users) that doesn't quite feel native or a natively-backed toolkit that is less featureful, more buggy, and free.

> looks or feels anything like a native Windows application

But compared to what? A ribbon app like MSWord? Photoshop? VS2015? VS200X? They're all radically different and they're all creation-centered apps, so if you tell me Qt Creator doesn't feel native... it feels more native than any of those I cited, all massive commercial successes?

It's like you said... it looks native when you stick to forms and buttons. And honestly, yeah that's fine, because any app that doesn't stick to forms and buttons will want to customize itself far more.

Wikipedia:

>On some platforms (such as MeeGo and KDE) Qt is the native API. Some other portable graphical toolkits have made different design decisions; for example, wxWidgets uses the toolkits of the target platform for its implementations.

As far as I know, it's also true that Qt doesn't try to use native widgets, it instead tries to draw them on its own (resulting in more possibilities of course).

Besides maintaining the eponymous desktop environment, KDE is very much a platform, leveraging Qt, but also offering its own core libs and infrastructure for tons of stuff.

So much so, in fact, that the title of their webpage is: "KDE - The KDE development platform".

I should know, I've been following (and occasionally participating) in the project since 1998.

It is not a platform in the sense that's meant in the post above, which is why I said the article is misleading, not wrong.

Like you said, KDE leverages Qt. Qt doesn't leverage KDE in the sense that "Qt's native platform is KDE".

When you say "native" when talking about a cross-platform toolkit, you're implying the toolkit was first designed to run on that platform and then ported to others. Qt predates KDE, as you well know.

Are we done splitting hairs?

>When you say "native" when talking about a cross-platform toolkit, you're implying the toolkit was first designed to run on that platform and then ported to others.

No, you're just implying (as the parent did) that the platform (KDE) had picked and stuck to the toolkit (Qt) as its basis, unlike Wx which has multiple.

Even many of the Windows apps that one might use use Qt, for example VLC.