Sry, that is a terrible argument. You are saying that we do not have to worry about nuclear waste, because we currently do not worry about other waste.
I'm saying that nuclear waste is treated with far more paranoia than it deserves, as illustrated by how we dispose of other waste much less carefully, even though it's just as dangerous. And mostly successfully, too. That doesn't mean that it's something to be ignored, or that current methods of waste disposal are perfect, but if we aren't shutting down the entire chemical industry (for example) over this problem then why should we require that nuclear waste and only nuclear waste be solved for all time before nuclear power can be used?
Exactly. Nuclear waste is one of the best types of toxic waste we've ever seen. It's relatively compact, still able to be used as fuel in the future, there isn't much of it, and it makes itself harmless with just passage of time; no need to treat it with anything.
I think native UIs are overrated and just cause headaches for developers. E.g. take the most popular UI system: HTML/CSS/JS: users have no problem with the fact that all their favourite websites look different.
IMHO it is a better idea when the application enforces the same UI across platforms (like QT) than the platform expecting the same UI for all programs. On top of that QT does support native look&feel.
Theres a major difference between a website and a native application. I'm used to websites having no consistency and having elements all randomly over the page. I'm only there for a few minutes, after all.
A lot of productivity software uses Qt. If it were not using native look and feel it would piss everyone and their grams off when system level keyboard shortcuts didn't work, when menu bars weren't oriented system native, when it didn't use the system file dialog, etc. Integrating with the OS is essential to workflow unless the application literally is your entire workflow.
There are ones that don't (Quassel for example) and there are ones that do (VLC for one). At the end there is always some polish a developer needs to do, no matter how awesome the toolkit gets. If the developer won't do that, your app will look crap. And its not just OSX, you write your Qt app on Windows and then you run it on Linux, you will need some fine tuning to look perfect.
I still prefer it over any other free IRC client for OSX simply because the feature set rocks.
Its not nearly as bad as you make it seem. Also you can embed objective c and native cocoa widgets in Qt apps so you cam make it as native as you want.
Yeah, but mostly because these applications do not work properly on mobile devices (smaller screen size, too slow, etc.) and a native (in the sense of NOT browser-based) application makes sense. However my hypothesis is just, that the LOOK does not have to fit into the OS.
