Re: [ANNOUNCE] ugit: a pyqt-based git gui // was: Re: If you would write git from scratch now, what would you change?

["Jason Sewall" <jasonsewall@gmail.com>]

On Dec 11, 2007 11:10 PM, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> Jason Sewall <jasonsewall@gmail.com> 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