TODO: Hello World Exercise
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { QCoreApplication app(argc, argv); return app.exec(); }
Qt 5.7 released
91–100 of 108 posts
Re: Qt 5.7 released
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I belong to a generation that had to pay for its tools. My first Turbo Pascal for Windows was bought after a few months of saving. Same with other tools. Even open source, I used to pay for the Walnut Creek CD-Roms. Nowadays I still buy software tools and do occasional donations. So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free on one side, but then complain that unless they are selling se…
> So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free I'm a (senior) millennial and I'm prepared to pay for tools that are worth it. However, Free (as in freedom) software has come a long way, I won't pay for tooling that is at par or less capable than, with Free software. I think the rise of GPL/Open source - GCC, Linux and Free DBs & languages (and their ecosystems) are to blame; not millen…
Such tools already existed back then, they were called freeware and Public Domain, or came as gifts in magazine listings or tapes.
Also some people would keep on re-installing them past the demo deadline, or crack them, just to avoid paying.
But not on the scale that happens today.
Linux and GCC would not be as developed as they are if it wasn't for the companies that sell hardware and are willing to pay engineer time to improve them.
During GCC early days, most contributors were the ones not wanting to pay for the Solaris SDK, so its development was as fast as Hurd still is today.
Regarding languages, that is why commercial tools get all the nice goodies, no one can make a living of selling improved tooling to FOSS developers.
Hence why many watch a talk from Bret Viktor and are amazed of his presentations, but we already had such tools in 90's, they just had the sin of being commercial.
Re: Qt 5.7 released
#93Ive 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I agree that Qt widgets is obsolete with the market -- they're not keeping up with the latest developments in interfaces and should just abandon this.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…
Good question. maybe i don't know the answer. I've been impressed by the way that QML and C++ integrate. I write bits of UI glue JS in QML and these bits call into C++ "magically". I can pass data in and get data back.
This is a lot easier than my JNI battles with Android Java.
I tend to have a lot of backend C++, which performs all the heavy lifting of my apps. I like to make the front UI as thin as possible. QML lets me build things quite fast and i like the way that properties update themselves.
The only real complaint i have with QtQuick/QML is things not working properly on Android. But I'm hoping this situation will improve, and the main reason I'm looking into Controls.2
You say that jquery can call to C++. Where can i find out about this and how would this work on Android.
Re: Qt 5.7 released
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, it is "pay upfront" that scares many, I believe. Developers are experimenters - love to play and test many things and in case of commercial success, I think it will be a no-brainier to pay. So I think models such as "pay after your first 10K (or 100K) revenue" work.
Well then Qt is great because it's free, you can ship your app using Qt with out paying a nickel and it keeps being free no matter what your revenue. It only costs money if you want to ship your app with different legal terms.
Yeah. Qt is far beyond reasonable, and I categorically can't understand the motivations for people who'd rather pay substantially more, with higher risk, to write their own version.
Re: Qt 5.7 released
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
XAML/BAML/WPF?
But that's AOT compilation of XAML into BAML, with just a parser on the runtime side that creates the object graph. There's no JIT involved, as far as I know.
You're right; I somehow assumed BAML would contain CIL, but instead it's as you said.
Re: Qt 5.7 released
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free I'm a (senior) millennial and I'm prepared to pay for tools that are worth it. However, Free (as in freedom) software has come a long way, I won't pay for tooling that is at par or less capable than, with Free software. I think the rise of GPL/Open source - GCC, Linux and Free DBs & languages (and their ecosystems) are to blame; not millen…
Such tools already existed back then, they were called freeware and Public Domain, or came as gifts in magazine listings or tapes. Also some people would keep on re-installing them past the demo deadline, or crack them, just to avoid paying. But not on the scale that happens today. Linux and GCC would not be as developed as they are if it wasn't for the companies that sell hardware and are willing to pay engineer tim…
Is there any way out of this local optimum?
Re: Qt 5.7 released
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like there should be a company willing to handle that for you. Take $X for for specific hosting and delivery costs up to Y for particular open source projects you've listed, for Z years.
Have you heard of this sweet version control provider called Github? I hear they might provide a solution for this sort of thing, for free.
That doesn't satisfy the legal requirements. First, that repo may go away at some point, and you need it guaranteed, and second, they aren't doing to mail you a physical copy for cost, which is also a stipulation of some of these licenses.
Re: Qt 5.7 released
#98I 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.
Serious question because I'm curious: what is the problem with the MOC? Sure, its another build step, but so what? I mean, most large complex software has numerous build steps and MOC is pretty straightforward (and if you use QMake or QtCreator, its pretty much invisible to the programmer). I'm trying to understand why people dislike it so much.
It pretends to be c++ but it doesn't support all features and it fails silently during compile time when you don't use it in the exact specific way, problems first arrive at runtime. Some examples of seemingly simple things that just dont work without wrestling or not at all: Objects referring to other types of objects, enum class, 'using' aliases, stdint types, namespaces. Signal slot connections are not compile time type safe. The make process is also broken as sometimes it doesn't understand which files should be rebuilt so you have to force it by removing all generated files.
Re: Qt 5.7 released
#99Earlier 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…
Good question. maybe i don't know the answer. I've been impressed by the way that QML and C++ integrate. I write bits of UI glue JS in QML and these bits call into C++ "magically". I can pass data in and get data back. This is a lot easier than my JNI battles with Android Java. I tend to have a lot of backend C++, which performs all the heavy lifting of my apps. I like to make the front UI as thin as possible. QML le…
> You say that jquery can call to C++. Where can I find out about this and how would this work on Android?
If you use Qt 4.8, which required that you use Qt Webkit, then you're looking at needing to use the QtWebkit Bridge: http://doc.qt.io/qt-4.8/qtwebkit-bridge.html
If you're using Qt 5.7, which also requires that you use Qt WebEngine, then you're looking at needing to use QWebChannel: http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qwebchannel.html
They allow you to take a QObject class and then share it with the Webkit DOM as a Javascript object. You can then use Javascript and jQuery to call class methods (only ones you expose) of your Qt/C++ QObject class.
BTW, outside of Qt/C++, on the Mac with Objective C, they provide a way to map the AppDelegate to the Webkit DOM using the windowScriptObject, and ObjC lets you use the native Webkit SDK, rather than having to ship another one with your project.
This is great for desktop applications. Unfortunately for iOS and Android, however, both Qt 4.8's Qt Webkit and Qt 5.7's Qt WebEngine are not supported on those mobile platforms. http://stackoverflow.com/a/30662323/105539 I guess on those, you're stuck with using QtQuick/QML interacting with jQuery and C++, I guess? EDIT: On Android and iOS, you can use Qt WebView within a QML application, which uses the native Webkit on each OS. http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtwebview-index.html
If I were to develop for iOS and Android, I'd probably use Apache Cordova until something better comes along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Cordova#Supported_platf... . One criticism is that Cordova may be slow in some actions, but phones are getting much faster in every release, negating this trouble.