Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
#2Two companies with horrendous licensing methods and prices. They'll do great together.
Re: Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
#3I'm familiar with the normal MSVC/Clang/GCC/EDG C++ compilers, but not IAR's. They seem to make C++ compilers for embedded systems. Does anyone know if these are their own, or based on something like Clang?
Their supported standards list 'libc++' [1] which implies LLVM and potentially Clang. I could not find info online.
"IAR Embedded Workbench C++ is dialectal and contains some features not part of standard C++." [2] Their extensions seem to be to relax some awkward syntax, and for embedded systems support such as memory positioning (?)
Qt is huge in the embedded space, such as automotive, where I see IAR is as well. Makes sense as an acquisition. I used to work as the C++Builder product manager, which has custom C++ language extensions, and I always personally (not a statement from my prior employer in any way) wondered if Qt might someday look to that toolchain too -- it does not target embedded computing, but it has excellent expertise in custom compiler changes including extensions to address exactly the same problems (as I understand) that Moc tries to solve. In general especially with the state of the C++ committee, and Qt dealing with some custom handling, I would expect owning a compiler toolchain with a willingness to customise the language to be highly beneficial for them.
[1] https://www.iar.com/embedded-development-tools/iar-embedded-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAR_Systems#IAR_Embedded_Workb...
Re: Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
#4I'm familiar with the normal MSVC/Clang/GCC/EDG C++ compilers, but not IAR's. They seem to make C++ compilers for embedded systems. Does anyone know if these are their own, or based on something like Clang? Their supported standards list 'libc++' [1] which implies LLVM and potentially Clang. I could not find info online. "IAR Embedded Workbench C++ is dialectal and contains some features not part of standard C++." [2…
It's been a few years since I've slung code with it, but I'm pretty sure IAR had their own compiler (along with it's own special occasional bugs). Of the IDE's I've used, it wasn't that bad. But QT Creator was better. Bringing together IAR's tech and reach with QT's expertise does make a lot of sense.
Re: Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
#5Two companies with horrendous licensing methods and prices. They'll do great together.
Everytime a QT post comes someone bitch about the licensing model. And every time I google and try understand what is wrong with the licensing model. And everytime I end up confused about it.
Could you kindly ELI5 me what is wrong with QT licensing model?
Re: Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
#6I have a C++ seasoned colleague who says that It framework went behind the current C++ standard, however I remember Qt Framework much cleaner than C++ itself (by making a sort of a enhanced subset), and would prefer use it. What are your opinions?
Re: Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
#7I'm familiar with the normal MSVC/Clang/GCC/EDG C++ compilers, but not IAR's. They seem to make C++ compilers for embedded systems. Does anyone know if these are their own, or based on something like Clang? Their supported standards list 'libc++' [1] which implies LLVM and potentially Clang. I could not find info online. "IAR Embedded Workbench C++ is dialectal and contains some features not part of standard C++." [2…
I'm not sure there's much overlap in use cases, considering the two very separate classes of 'embedded'; Qt is used on Linux capable devices and IAR is MCUs
why would Qt want to customize a compiler when they still need to support llvm/gcc/msvc?
Re: Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
#8Two companies with horrendous licensing methods and prices. They'll do great together.
Everytime a QT post comes someone bitch about the licensing model. And every time I google and try understand what is wrong with the licensing model. And everytime I end up confused about it. Could you kindly ELI5 me what is wrong with QT licensing model?
If you get confused by it then that's all that needs to be said. The rest has been discussed over and over. I've dropped Qt for other front-end tech and I'm happier now.
Re: Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
#9Two companies with horrendous licensing methods and prices. They'll do great together.
Everytime a QT post comes someone bitch about the licensing model. And every time I google and try understand what is wrong with the licensing model. And everytime I end up confused about it. Could you kindly ELI5 me what is wrong with QT licensing model?
From my perspective they spread FUD about open source licensing. QT core is LGPL3. Many applications would be fine with using LGPL3 in commercial applications. Read QT's landing page on licensing, and fossa has a good block post on requirements.
https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing
https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgp...
>And everytime I end up confused about it.
I think this is the point. If you're making a real application you may pay for the licensing to avoid the uncertainty/risk.
Re: Qt Group Buys IAR Systems Group
#10Two companies with horrendous licensing methods and prices. They'll do great together.
Everytime a QT post comes someone bitch about the licensing model. And every time I google and try understand what is wrong with the licensing model. And everytime I end up confused about it. Could you kindly ELI5 me what is wrong with QT licensing model?
It’s LGPL mostly, with some non-core libraries that are GPL or use other licenses:
https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html
Over the years it has been noted by many that Qt’s wording and warnings about the LGPL amount to spreading FUD or outright misinformation in what seems like an attempt to scare managers and C-suite folks into buying commercial licenses “just in case”.