31–40 of 53 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm curious what you settled on and why. Care to elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Because it’s unclear and incomplete. Always prone to some KDE whims.
I once tried to get a IAR C++ embedded codebase to compile with g++ and it's stdlib on a very small chip. It eventually compiled but never worked. I'll have to rewrite it in C instead. There were many hacks, like filling the stack with sentinels to detect it at run-time. The linker script was horrible. Rewrote everything from scratch. The resulting code was many KB too large for the available space, it would have nee…
Their IDE is horrendous.
Why is Qt support so poor on mobile (and especially PyQT)? They're basically just 2 OSes at this point, they've been around for 15+ years. They do change, but they're also quite backwards compatible.
I would imagine that Qt would want to target such a huge market.
I once tried to get a IAR C++ embedded codebase to compile with g++ and it's stdlib on a very small chip. It eventually compiled but never worked. I'll have to rewrite it in C instead. There were many hacks, like filling the stack with sentinels to detect it at run-time. The linker script was horrible. Rewrote everything from scratch. The resulting code was many KB too large for the available space, it would have nee…
Honestly I'd be willing to blame GCC for that one. IME its output is atrocious for embedded stuff. Few optimizations for the chips I use and absolute nonsense assembly trying to emulate CPU instructions GCC doesn't know exist in hardware. Binaries are regularly 3x larger than they should be. It's so awful I had to end up writing my tight loops in straight assembly because GCC couldn't handle incrementing a damn point…
Two 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?
Their compiler(s) are... fine, I guess. Maybe it makes fast code (didn't do a whole lot of profiling), but compiling with it is slow as hell. Their IDE is horrendous.
Their compiler(s) are... fine, I guess. Maybe it makes fast code (didn't do a whole lot of profiling), but compiling with it is slow as hell. Their IDE is horrendous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm curious what you settled on and why. Care to elaborate?
I've switched to vanilla web technologies. Node, React, etc. It's painful and it sucks but hardware keeps getting faster and cheaper. I can find contractors easily and I don't need an increasingly expensive subscription^H^H^H^Hcontract with Qt to keep my developer seat hot. They tried multiple times to get me to abaondon my Qt5 license to switch to their new revenue model. I told them to fuck off.