Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qt 5.7 released

blog.qt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#81

Post by volomike1 »

steaminghacker wrote: post #77

Ive been using QtQuick for a while now and the last two weeks i've battled with 5.7RC. So, time to dl the proper release and see if it works any better. My conclusions are that it's fantastic for desktop apps, but I'm having a lot less success with mobile, specifically Android. Originally, my plan was to reserve QT for desktop and write the mobile versions separately, whilst sharing the same C++ backend. However, i g…

I agree that Qt widgets is obsolete with the market -- they're not keeping up with the latest developments in interfaces and should just abandon this.

My question to you is why bother with QtQuick when you can build your interface in Webkit/HTML/CSS/jQuery? With the Webkit angle, then you can integrate file:// and remote content, and can utilize the best interfaces that the web has to offer, which is innovating far faster than QtQuick could ever dream of innovating because there are more web UI coders than there are QtQuick coders. The other great thing with the Webkit approach is that you can hire lower-cost UI coders (who have no background in C++) to do your interface, and debug it using Chrome. The interface would show up in the upper left-hand corner of the browser. They could stub it all out with fake data and get it working completely, and then pass it to you to do the jQuery connectivity to the Qt/C++ DOM injection so that jQuery could call C++ and get results.

However, if installer size is a concern, then yes, QtQuick is the way to go.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#82

Post by vram22 »

zem wrote: post #80
vram22 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few other choices for multi-platform GUI programming. Just not too many, and the ones other than wxWidgets and Qt are not so well known a.k.a. mentioned so often on the net. But they exist. There's a Wikipedia page with a list of GUI toolkits. I've tried a few of them briefly, earlier. FLTK (Fast Light Tool Kit) and Fox toolkit are two. Some of them are in C/C++ but some of those have bindings for Python,…

IUP has pretty good chicken scheme bindings too. http://wiki.call-cc.org/iup-tutor

Good to know, thanks.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#83

Post by joshvm »

distances wrote: post #59
joshvm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're fine with dynamic linking, then commercial development is still very much possible (though you lose Qt Charts). The only major pain is that you have to supply a copy of the Qt Source if requested - the pain being that a link to the official repo is not enough, you have to be in control of the code. However, I would imagine if you gave someone the option of (a) downloading from the website or (b) paying post…

> you have to supply a copy of the Qt Source if requested - the pain being that a link to the official repo is not enough I don't think this this is true. My googling is now failing me as I just get results about linking of libraries, but I remember reading it's enough to point to the source if it's unmodified in your application.

http://www.qt.io/FAQ/#_Toc453700716

The Qt FAQ specifically says that their copy isn't sufficient, but as you say perhaps it only counts if you've made modifications (which would make sense).

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#84

Post by defiancedigital »

volomike1 wrote: post #81
steaminghacker wrote: post #77

Ive been using QtQuick for a while now and the last two weeks i've battled with 5.7RC. So, time to dl the proper release and see if it works any better. My conclusions are that it's fantastic for desktop apps, but I'm having a lot less success with mobile, specifically Android. Originally, my plan was to reserve QT for desktop and write the mobile versions separately, whilst sharing the same C++ backend. However, i g…

I agree that Qt widgets is obsolete with the market -- they're not keeping up with the latest developments in interfaces and should just abandon this. My question to you is why bother with QtQuick when you can build your interface in Webkit/HTML/CSS/jQuery? With the Webkit angle, then you can integrate file:// and remote content, and can utilize the best interfaces that the web has to offer, which is innovating far f…

If you have never taste the limit of Webkit/HTML/CSS/jQuery for client side application, you should stay away of QtQuick criticism.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#85

Post by defiancedigital »

symlinkk wrote: post #22

I want to like Qt but I hate that it needs moc. Also I don't like that it doesn't use much of the STL - it forces you to use classes like "QVector" and "QList" instead of std::vector and std::list.

I'm not disturb by moc. Meta object/programmation is a modern approach of OO.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#86

Post by defiancedigital »

RotsiserMho wrote: post #30
symlinkk wrote: post #22

I want to like Qt but I hate that it needs moc. Also I don't like that it doesn't use much of the STL - it forces you to use classes like "QVector" and "QList" instead of std::vector and std::list.

I avoided Qt for a long time due to what I'd heard about moc being required. However recent versions support connecting lambdas to slots which is sufficient for my relatively simple application to avoid using moc to set up signals/slots.

You should consider that c++ lambdas does not offer the same level of connection that signal/slot does (direct,queue,blocking,unique) ...

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#87

Post by defiancedigital »

volomike1 wrote: post #75

My understanding is that with Qt, you can keep your own Qt source compiled (and not shared) and use the open source license of Qt, but must dynamically link to the runtimes, list the open source license in your application directory, and list a URL where people can download the source of those Qt runtime DLLs that you are linking. Also, I found the widgets sub-par to modern interfaces you see on the web today. Let me…

"C++ coder ... often have poor interface skills, anyway" ... troll inside

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#89

Post by volomike1 »

defiancedigital wrote: post #87
volomike1 wrote: post #75

My understanding is that with Qt, you can keep your own Qt source compiled (and not shared) and use the open source license of Qt, but must dynamically link to the runtimes, list the open source license in your application directory, and list a URL where people can download the source of those Qt runtime DLLs that you are linking. Also, I found the widgets sub-par to modern interfaces you see on the web today. Let me…

"C++ coder ... often have poor interface skills, anyway" ... troll inside

I'm not trolling. Someone told me, "Hey, you're a C++ coder. You have like no design skills. I've seen your stuff. It needs work." The investor then brought in a UI expert and wowed me. It was then that I realized, "Wow, I don't have good UI skills." I imagine this is probably the case with many C++ coders. Sorry to offend if you're an awesome UI expert AND a C++ coder.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#90

Post by volomike1 »

defiancedigital wrote: post #84
volomike1 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that Qt widgets is obsolete with the market -- they're not keeping up with the latest developments in interfaces and should just abandon this. My question to you is why bother with QtQuick when you can build your interface in Webkit/HTML/CSS/jQuery? With the Webkit angle, then you can integrate file:// and remote content, and can utilize the best interfaces that the web has to offer, which is innovating far f…

If you have never taste the limit of Webkit/HTML/CSS/jQuery for client side application, you should stay away of QtQuick criticism.

That's rather vague, don't you think?
Post reply on HN