Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews • Hacker News Board

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#11

Post by pbsdp » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:06 PM UTC

kombine wrote: post #10

pbsdp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are websites holding up against the native App Store apps for apps ?

You can't really compare websites with Qt apps. QML was made from the ground up to allow for building fluid UIs. It is rendered using OpenGL. HTML was never meant to be used for app development, hence the poor experience. Qt and QML is just not native(widgets will look different, etc), but it will perform well. And you can always imitate the look and feel of native OS so apps at least don't look too alien.

> Qt and QML is just not native(widgets will look different, etc), but it will perform well.

Yes, which is not what people want. They want apps that fit in with the larger platform and exploit it's featureset.

We already went through this on Mac OS X. I use a Qt/Mac app every day for work, and would ditch it in a second if a native alternative was produced.

Unfortunately, it's an extremely niche application, and the competition is nowhere near caught up.

> And you can always imitate the look and feel of native OS so apps at least don't look too alien.

That's never worked out well for anyone, ever, in the entire history of cross-platform widget library attempts.

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#12

Post by dman » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:07 PM UTC

pbsdp wrote: post #9

maggit wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Qt 5.1 poorly integrated with Android? Have you experienced this, or are you simply assuming it? Working with Qt could be a huge productivity boost for me compared to working with the standard Android SDK. I could have more time available to make it look and work well, and I would be able to reuse core application code (not UI code, mind you) across platforms. Isn't it premature to declare this a categorical disad…

> Isn't it premature to declare this a categorical disadvantage for the user? No, we've had about 10-15 years to prove, repeatedly, that "write once, run everywhere" UI never works. > I would have more time available to make it look and work well, and I would be able to reuse core application code (not UI code, mind you) across platforms. Qt brings in their own UI code, but if you didn't want to use it, you'd have to…

OpenGL and Qt both work fairly consistently on multiple platforms.

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#13

Post by pbsdp » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:10 PM UTC

dman wrote: post #12

pbsdp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't it premature to declare this a categorical disadvantage for the user? No, we've had about 10-15 years to prove, repeatedly, that "write once, run everywhere" UI never works. > I would have more time available to make it look and work well, and I would be able to reuse core application code (not UI code, mind you) across platforms. Qt brings in their own UI code, but if you didn't want to use it, you'd have to…

OpenGL and Qt both work fairly consistently on multiple platforms.

What does that have to do with the platform native widgets and UX?

In fact, GL and the native UX interacts poorly, consistently, on both platforms.

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#14

Post by shadowmint » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:11 PM UTC

pbsdp wrote: post #5

"I wish my apps were written using a poorly integrated non-native toolkit" said no actual user, ever. Nobody wants a Qt-based application port , for most of the same reason nobody wanted a (Java) Swing-based port . They don't want ports, they want native apps. The only people who want to provide Qt-based apps are developers that want to put themselves ahead of their users. [edit] Perhaps downvoters can reference a cr…

I wish I didn't have to write my f##$@$ing apps in java and then again in objective-C and then again in C# said every developer, ever...

Edit, for your benefit: xamarin, unity.

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#15

Post by shadowmint » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:14 PM UTC

Great work! Nice seeing QT actually trying to be relevant again, now it's escaped the clutches of Nokia.

Here's hoping that Google doesn't decide to depreciate the native apis on android now there are a few options to write apps that don't involve using their crazy lock-in java api.

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#16

Post by pbsdp » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:15 PM UTC

shadowmint wrote: post #14

pbsdp wrote: post #5

"I wish my apps were written using a poorly integrated non-native toolkit" said no actual user, ever. Nobody wants a Qt-based application port , for most of the same reason nobody wanted a (Java) Swing-based port . They don't want ports, they want native apps. The only people who want to provide Qt-based apps are developers that want to put themselves ahead of their users. [edit] Perhaps downvoters can reference a cr…

I wish I didn't have to write my f##$@$ing apps in java and then again in objective-C and then again in C# said every developer, ever... Edit, for your benefit: xamarin, unity.

Yes. And users still don't care, and they're the ones that pay for the work.

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#17

Post by kombine » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:19 PM UTC

pbsdp wrote: post #11

kombine wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really compare websites with Qt apps. QML was made from the ground up to allow for building fluid UIs. It is rendered using OpenGL. HTML was never meant to be used for app development, hence the poor experience. Qt and QML is just not native(widgets will look different, etc), but it will perform well. And you can always imitate the look and feel of native OS so apps at least don't look too alien.

> Qt and QML is just not native(widgets will look different, etc), but it will perform well. Yes, which is not what people want. They want apps that fit in with the larger platform and exploit it's featureset. We already went through this on Mac OS X. I use a Qt/Mac app every day for work, and would ditch it in a second if a native alternative was produced. Unfortunately, it's an extremely niche application, and the…

I worked for a company developing cross-platform Qt applications(we deployed for Linux and Windows though) and all our clients were pretty happy, so I would refrain from the claim "That's never worked out well for anyone, ever, in the entire history of cross-platform widget library attempts.". My example is just one out of hundreds and hundreds of uses of Qt in industry.

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#18

Post by pbsdp » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:21 PM UTC

kombine wrote: post #17

pbsdp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Qt and QML is just not native(widgets will look different, etc), but it will perform well. Yes, which is not what people want. They want apps that fit in with the larger platform and exploit it's featureset. We already went through this on Mac OS X. I use a Qt/Mac app every day for work, and would ditch it in a second if a native alternative was produced. Unfortunately, it's an extremely niche application, and the…

I worked for a company developing cross-platform Qt applications(we deployed for Linux and Windows though) and all our clients were pretty happy, so I would refrain from the claim "That's never worked out well for anyone, ever, in the entire history of cross-platform widget library attempts.". My example is just one out of hundreds and hundreds of uses of Qt in industry.

If by 'worked' you mean that you were still able to sell it.

It doesn't fit into the platform and nobody actually likes the result, but if you have a market niche, you can get away with it -- until a competitor appears that actually invests in what their users want.

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#19

Post by morsch » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:31 PM UTC

pbsdp wrote: post #5

"I wish my apps were written using a poorly integrated non-native toolkit" said no actual user, ever. Nobody wants a Qt-based application port , for most of the same reason nobody wanted a (Java) Swing-based port . They don't want ports, they want native apps. The only people who want to provide Qt-based apps are developers that want to put themselves ahead of their users. [edit] Perhaps downvoters can reference a cr…

Cross platform UI tools failed in so much as they failed because a) they were reduced to the smallest common set of features of all targeted platforms and b) they failed to provide a look and feel that was indistinguishable from the native toolkit.

Neither of those two seems necessarily unsolvable, however to a certain degree it forces the developer to give up many of the benefits of using a cross platform toolkit in the first place.

Of those two, b) is the more obvious one and the issue that is typically raised. I'm not sure how well Qt5.1 solves it for desktop apps. But looking at my mobile apps, they're already varying wildly in terms of look and fee. I don't think Qt apps will stand out. Mobile platforms are also fairly similar in terms of feature sets, so there's less work to do to solve a), but developers will still have to deal with different handling of notifications, etc.

Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews

#20

Post by numo16 » Wed, Jul 03, 2013, 3:46 PM UTC

pbsdp wrote: post #18

kombine wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked for a company developing cross-platform Qt applications(we deployed for Linux and Windows though) and all our clients were pretty happy, so I would refrain from the claim "That's never worked out well for anyone, ever, in the entire history of cross-platform widget library attempts.". My example is just one out of hundreds and hundreds of uses of Qt in industry.

If by 'worked' you mean that you were still able to sell it. It doesn't fit into the platform and nobody actually likes the result, but if you have a market niche, you can get away with it -- until a competitor appears that actually invests in what their users want.

Qt seems to be working alright for Autodesk Maya and Mudbox. They migrated the UI to it and everyone I've talked to that use these on various platforms don't really have any complaint about the UI (especially since they can use Qt, PyQt, etc... for building plugins).