Native doesn't mean "it's not written in JS" or "it's fast". Native means "it uses the GUI toolkit of the target platform". And Qt doesn't do that, it merely mimics its appearance.
Good question. Let's see, what are the GUI programs that I use every day... Emacs, exwm (separate X client so I guess it counts even if elisp), st, chromium, mpv, mupdf, conky. That's 6 out of 7, so I guess the answer is most of them?
(Emacs is built with --without-x-toolkit)
So because Microsoft has lowered the bar, now everything can be called "native"? There's a reason many people hate UWP.
X11 and Win32 UI are actually fairly similar in this respect.
Delphi is not so popular these days, but there still is a fair share of Delphi programs running.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Component_Library
[2]: http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/Libraries/Seattle/en/Vcl.StdC...
There are themes that mimic GTK apps on Qt and vice versa and they look like crap.
But in my opinion Qt apps also look like crap on Windows and Mac. They look somewhat like a native app, but everything is off.
For example, if you have a Qt app on Windows and you click a menu separator, the menu closes, <s>like it would do on Mac</s>. On Windows, clicking a menu separator should do nothing, the menu should remain open. There are dozens of little annoyances like that. Not to mention padding/spacing of elements, etc.
Of course, Qt is very useful. I've worked with it (using QWidgets) and I've liked it a lot, despite of its drawbacks. But it's certainly not native. It merely emulates the target interface.
This does not, of course, invalidate your main point in any way. (I also currently have p4v open on another display, and, well.)