I'd love to know more about this COIN system that has been released. Jenkins causes a lot of pain for LibreOffice infrastructure devs.
Qt 5.6.0 released
81–90 of 112 posts
Re: Qt 5.6.0 released
#82Re: Qt 5.6.0 released
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spam? The link says the domain is available...
Not for me, though there appear to be broken images.
This site is temporarily unavailable
If you manage this site and have a question about why the site is not available, please contact Domain.com directly.
:(
Re: Qt 5.6.0 released
#84I really like Qt and think its an incredible framework overall. Even if you don't use the Qt libraries, QtCreator is one of the best C++ IDEs out there imo (though qmake really sucks and they've been dragging their feet on a proper replacement for years) The real show stopper for me with Qt is its licensing though. LGPL is a no-go on closed mobile platforms and its commercial license at $350/month is completely unrea…
Why not just put your proprietary stuff in a closed-source library and distribute the rest of the source in accordance with the LGPL? What's so horrible about that? Even iOS allows dynamic linking nowadays.
Re: Qt 5.6.0 released
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I use the new fancy compiler stuff like Lambdas with QT? Does it still require a meta compiler?
Yes, you can use C++ 11 features with Qt. In Qt 5.4 I had to add CONFIG += c++11 to the .pro file. I haven't used it, but it seems Qt 5.5 supports C++ 14.
You could use C++14 with Qt4 if you wanted. Your choice of standard doesn't really affect Qt much.
Re: Qt 5.6.0 released
#86At $350 monthy it's way too expensive. They should consider introducing an indie or individual developer licences at a lower price point.
Isn't the LGPL good enough?
Re: Qt 5.6.0 released
#87At $350 monthy it's way too expensive. They should consider introducing an indie or individual developer licences at a lower price point.
They announced a start-up/small business plan [1] of $49/month.
Re: Qt 5.6.0 released
#88I've used Qt many years ago (2007) and I liked the experience, but I had to move away from it because our company decided to go native on all fronts.. For internal tools/prototypes I was using JUCE for my UI needs, which is much smaller in scale that Qt, but it produced very slim executables, was fast and good enough for my needs (plus I loved the API). I still think this a great framework for small UIs and tools, es…
Thanks for the tip on JUCE. I have an audio project I've been wanting to implement for a while, and procrastinating because of ugly audio APIs, JUCE looks just the ticket.
Re: Qt 5.6.0 released
#89Will it be worth it/extremely hard to learn C++ just to use Qt? (I always read here and reddit about how hard/inefficient/easy to fail is everything is in C++) (Eng. background and software dev full time)
C++ is worth knowing, if only superficially, without any regard for Qt.
I am not sure about that. Not in the sense of gaining wisdom as would be in case of, say, Lisp or Haskell -- or even C. C++ is all just nuts and bolts, a more or less coherently implemented collection of paradigms originated in other languages. It is very useful from the practical standpoint, no doubt, but being "worth knowing", "superficially" - not so much IMHO.
Re: Qt 5.6.0 released
#90Qt is one of the nicest frameworks I've worked with. I write code that I expect to run (and look roughly the same) on all 3 major plats (win, linux, osx) and Qt does this a lot better than the alternatives. But what I really appreciate about Qt is the entire system was designed from the ground up by grownups who understand how to deploy software and have it last for over a decade. most of the frameworks today feel li…
It's amazing to me that they maintain binary compatibility across minor version bumps. Anything linked against Qt 5.0 (released 2012) will work with Qt 5.6 without even recompiling.