GTK3 is becoming very GNOME3 specific, while Qt5 is still agnostic and easy to port on different platforms.
People don't have to explain their preferences in a rational way, they will just switch away from GTK3. It's cheaper.
Successful developers will try to interpret these users' feedback in a self-critical, introspective and positive way, and tweak their product based on the feedback. As opposed to continually challenging the giver of the feedback to explain their opinion in more detail, as if by repeatedly digging deeper and deeper into an opinion, you will at some point find some fundamental logical contradiction in their views that will make them re-evaluate their life philosophy on why they just don't like GTK3.
I for one think the two opinions given above are perfectly clear ("GTK3 is becoming very GNOME3 specific", "As a user, I don't want them") and can't see why further clarification is being requested. If you really need clarification on these perfectly clear opinions, it is your problem.
What I stated was that development decisions, whatever they are, are up to the developers, including which frameworks they wish to use, and how they wish to use them. Saying in any form that you don't want developers to make decisions is nonsensical, as they would not be able to write anything then. Decisions have to be made, compromises chosen, and ultimately, not everyone will get their will.
If you don't want other developers to make decisions for you, you're stuck writing all the software you want to use yourself.
I suspect this of being as recent an attitude as "no, it's fine that a desktop chat client should take up nearly 4 GB doing absolutely nothing, memory is made to be used".
There are enough of us who lived through the days when, no, developers didn't need to make certain decisions for us on the Linux desktop. It wasn't a perfect time but it did exist — as recently as ten years to fifteen years ago in the days of GTK+2 and KDE 3.
Again, it wasn't perfect, but those days contradict your assertion. People shouldn't have their opinions discounted because they're no longer in vogue.
I also don't really appreciate being called a "fanboy" by the GP. I use Qt as well and I don't favor any framework over another. I'm sticking to the facts here: GTK supports building apps any way you want, not just in the GNOME style. Maybe the problem is that the apps you tried happen to all be GNOME-styled apps. That's a choice that the app developers have to make consciously and has nothing to do with GTK. If there is something else you mean by "locked into GNOME" then please elaborate, because I am having trouble understanding what you're referring to.
If the user is able to spot the choice of toolkit just by using the application, I'd suspect that design decisions have been coupled to code decisions, which would be a smell by itself. I mean, what exactly would you do if the code guy says, GTK fits the code best, and the design guy says, Qt fits the design best? The answer would be "the Qt look-and-feel for design, and the GTK API for code", but you can't do that when you have coupled these decisions.
In Qt it's absolutely possible for applications to force client-side decorations and force a certain stylesheet. Maybe it's not common in the apps you use, but again, it's up to the app developer if they want to make use of those things or not.
They also break them at every release.
Regardless of that I don't see anything based on "cascading styles" as lending itself to a stable theming system anyway. The CSS is probably going to change any time a widget is added/refactored/bugfixed, this holds true on the web as well once you build up a complex library of React components or whatever. The point of it is that there are multiple styles from multiple sources that can cascade together. It's powerful but it can result in a lot of complexity, anyone who's had to add !important directives can attest to that. It needs to be strictly managed by the developers to really work correctly and to prevent the style overrides from getting out of hand. Allowing custom user CSS is only for power users who understand the caveats.
From the perspective of making design decisions, it's somewhat equivalent to swapping the phone shell on a Nokia 3310.
Applications run as part of a system that provides certain shared system-wide features and is configured by the user. They should slot into that system.
KIO vs GVFS? :)
Filesystem drivers are much further down the stack, but that's just a different group of developers making all the decisions.
The only thing that has become supported in GTK fairly recently is a common appearance for them. If you notice more app developers happening to use them lately, that's a different issue driven by design trends, not by what some toolkit decides to support. Technically speaking, CSD is not exactly a new thing and has been the norm on Windows and Mac for quite a long time now. Design-wise, the practice of putting widgets into the title bar is what app developers are wanting now. Have you noticed the UI in the newest Chrome? Or iTunes? All the topmost widgets are moved up into the title bar. This is where we are headed at the moment.
And making your window override-redirect, and implementing window motion, resizing, and so on by yourself, since the window manager doesn't do it for you, and dealing with all of the ICCCM and EWMH conventions, and...
I can't stress this enough: this kind of thing was already supported for quite a long time and app developers were doing it long ago. The only thing GTK3 added was a common look and feel for it. Qt also has that now too.
Relying on GTK to be a cross-platform GUI toolkit is very risky given its current direction.
[1]: https://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/GtkStatusIcon.html
>Their developers stated on more than one occasion that GTK is a GNOME-first toolkit.
I have not heard this. I've actually seen great pains being taken to preserve Windows and Mac support in GTK4. For the record I actually think removing something because GNOME doesn't support it would be very valid and wouldn't make them a GNOME-first toolkit. A proper cross-platform toolkit would consider all the supported platforms equally and would support things that can work correctly across all of them, and in this case GNOME happens to be one of those platforms. Remember that they've also deprecated and removed things in the past that didn't work on Windows, such as all the X11-centric stuff that was present in GTK1 and GTK2.
No, they've deprecated and removed far, far more than that. They've obsoleted and dropped fundamental containers and widgets which have been present right from the 1.x days. These changes represent hard compatibility breaks, each and every one of them. As an application developer, these are not improvements, but very costly.
And they even broke compatibility with their UI file formats, with no upgrade path.
Upgrading now requires hand-editing huge piles of XML. They could have written some simple XSLT transforms to provide an upgrade path, but they didn't. Or you have to hand-edit all of your sources. Either way, it's painful and with zero added value.
I don't expect a competently-maintained library to indulge in such huge breaking changes without a really, really good reason. The old functionality could have been retained, implemented entirely in terms of the new, but they just had to rip it all out for the sake of it. That's not maintenance with end developers in mind. It's a huge "screw you" to their actual userbase: application developers.
>The old functionality could have been retained, implemented entirely in terms of the new, but they just had to rip it all out for the sake of it. That's not maintenance with end developers in mind.
I see these kinds of things being said all the time but at the end of the day, nobody seems to want to pick up the slack and start maintaining all those legacy widgets for eternity. There is a maintenance cost there too and the upstream developers don't want to foot the bill, and neither do you, so stuff gets dropped on the floor. If you don't want to deal with this then you use flatpak/snap and you pin your application to a specific toolkit version forever. Do you have any better proposals? Do we as an industry have any better proposals besides throwing money at the problem? Because I assure you GTK is not the first (or last) library in existence to break ABI.
>They could have written some simple XSLT transforms to provide an upgrade path, but they didn't.
They did. In GTK4 there is an automated tool to update the XML. It doesn't really work perfectly right now, but GTK4 is still pre-alpha. https://developer.gnome.org/gtk4/stable/ch31s02.html#id-1.6....