Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
1–10 of 107 posts
Re: Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
#2As a Rust user, very happy with qmetaobject-rs. It was really a breeze to make a basic GUI for personal use ...
I would also add an opinion: Qt is a great fit for Rust. GUI toolkits (=presentation layer) is best done declaratively and QML does an amazing job at it. Keep in mind that making a GUI kit, specially for 5 platforms in a way that it runs and feels uniformly across them all is a herculean task that returns no benefits because even if I can write some GUI in a "rusty" way, it won't suddenly speed up things because GUI is almost never a bottleneck.
Re: Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
#3As a Rust user, very happy with qmetaobject-rs. It was really a breeze to make a basic GUI for personal use ... I would also add an opinion: Qt is a great fit for Rust. GUI toolkits (=presentation layer) is best done declaratively and QML does an amazing job at it. Keep in mind that making a GUI kit, specially for 5 platforms in a way that it runs and feels uniformly across them all is a herculean task that returns n…
Can you compare it with GTK bindings for Rust?
I'm a big fan of QML, but I've avoided Qt on Rust for some time due to poor experiences with earlier bindings a while ago.
At the time, using GTK, imgui, etc were a bit friendlier on Rust than Qt. Hoping this has changed.
Re: Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
#4As a Rust user, very happy with qmetaobject-rs. It was really a breeze to make a basic GUI for personal use ... I would also add an opinion: Qt is a great fit for Rust. GUI toolkits (=presentation layer) is best done declaratively and QML does an amazing job at it. Keep in mind that making a GUI kit, specially for 5 platforms in a way that it runs and feels uniformly across them all is a herculean task that returns n…
Do you mean it’s no point in writing a GUI toolkit in Rust?
Re: Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
#5As a Rust user, very happy with qmetaobject-rs. It was really a breeze to make a basic GUI for personal use ... I would also add an opinion: Qt is a great fit for Rust. GUI toolkits (=presentation layer) is best done declaratively and QML does an amazing job at it. Keep in mind that making a GUI kit, specially for 5 platforms in a way that it runs and feels uniformly across them all is a herculean task that returns n…
I've always tried to build GUIs declaratively, but always failed to see the advantages over a traditional imperative building blocks. It's all good if we want to display a static dialog box, which is always the same, but complications arise when we want to do some nonstandard stuff. And this "nonstandard" is defined differently depending on the framework, but for some frameworks this status is achieved pretty easily.
With declarative + nonstandard we end up with some declarations, which are not the GUI we expect it to be, plus imperative code that mutates this anyway. So it's like we don't have the advantages of declarations, and we still need to write the code to build the GUI.
I'm still waiting for nice Qt bindings for Rust, as qmetaobject-rs seems to be QML-only?
Re: Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
#6As a Rust user, very happy with qmetaobject-rs. It was really a breeze to make a basic GUI for personal use ... I would also add an opinion: Qt is a great fit for Rust. GUI toolkits (=presentation layer) is best done declaratively and QML does an amazing job at it. Keep in mind that making a GUI kit, specially for 5 platforms in a way that it runs and feels uniformly across them all is a herculean task that returns n…
Have you tried https://slint.dev/?
Re: Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
#7As a Rust user, very happy with qmetaobject-rs. It was really a breeze to make a basic GUI for personal use ... I would also add an opinion: Qt is a great fit for Rust. GUI toolkits (=presentation layer) is best done declaratively and QML does an amazing job at it. Keep in mind that making a GUI kit, specially for 5 platforms in a way that it runs and feels uniformly across them all is a herculean task that returns n…
Do you mean it’s no point in writing a GUI toolkit in Rust?
You'd never be able to compete with qt anyway.
Re: Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
#8As a Rust user, very happy with qmetaobject-rs. It was really a breeze to make a basic GUI for personal use ... I would also add an opinion: Qt is a great fit for Rust. GUI toolkits (=presentation layer) is best done declaratively and QML does an amazing job at it. Keep in mind that making a GUI kit, specially for 5 platforms in a way that it runs and feels uniformly across them all is a herculean task that returns n…
I've always tried to build GUIs declaratively, but always failed to see the advantages over a traditional imperative building blocks. It's all good if we want to display a static dialog box, which is always the same, but complications arise when we want to do some nonstandard stuff. And this "nonstandard" is defined differently depending on the framework, but for some frameworks this status is achieved pretty easily.…
Could you make some actual example? Because I read 3 paragraph and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always tried to build GUIs declaratively, but always failed to see the advantages over a traditional imperative building blocks. It's all good if we want to display a static dialog box, which is always the same, but complications arise when we want to do some nonstandard stuff. And this "nonstandard" is defined differently depending on the framework, but for some frameworks this status is achieved pretty easily.…
Could you make some actual example? Because I read 3 paragraph and I have no idea what you're talking about.
I've got a potential example; I always wondered how that would be achieved with something like slint or qml:
With tools like xournal++ or other things like document processors, you can usually define your own panels, reorganize them, move them around, add icons or separators, etc, and all of that in a drag&drop fashion, live from the program running.
I feel like having a (compile-time) declarative description of that wouldn't cut it, or be very abstract, with most of the logic outside of the declarative description. Another option might be something that's "runtime declarative", and drag&dropping icons and panels around just change the ui definition?
Re: Qt 6.6 and 6.7 Make QML Faster Than Ever: A New Benchmark and Analysis
#10As a Rust user, very happy with qmetaobject-rs. It was really a breeze to make a basic GUI for personal use ... I would also add an opinion: Qt is a great fit for Rust. GUI toolkits (=presentation layer) is best done declaratively and QML does an amazing job at it. Keep in mind that making a GUI kit, specially for 5 platforms in a way that it runs and feels uniformly across them all is a herculean task that returns n…
Can you compare it with GTK bindings for Rust? I'm a big fan of QML, but I've avoided Qt on Rust for some time due to poor experiences with earlier bindings a while ago. At the time, using GTK, imgui, etc were a bit friendlier on Rust than Qt. Hoping this has changed.
Sorry, no experience there but it's possible that just for big screens, GTK might beat Qt ... (I think KDE also supports the "legacy" Qt + Rust option in some way ...)
But my point was mainly about the (almost) impossibility of building a well functioning cross platform UI kit. I honestly believe that effort should not be spent in that direction when a reasonably open source and well functioning option already exists.