151–160 of 211 posts
As someone who works with Windows forms, I'm wondering where the visual designer to place widgets is.
In addition to what the other said, if you use Qt Quick instead of Qt Widgets you get something which is an order of magnitude more powerful than most of the alternatives : * http://blog.qt.io/blog/2017/07/05/qt-quick-designer-coffee-m... * http://blog.qt.io/blog/2017/05/24/qt-quick-designer-qt-creat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to what the other said, if you use Qt Quick instead of Qt Widgets you get something which is an order of magnitude more powerful than most of the alternatives : * http://blog.qt.io/blog/2017/07/05/qt-quick-designer-coffee-m... * http://blog.qt.io/blog/2017/05/24/qt-quick-designer-qt-creat...
Does Qt Quick integrate well with Python?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Qt qualifies on any platform, imo.
Unless you use Qt quick which seems to be the way forward, and what many devs with html/css/js background seem to prefer. Qt widgets look close to native UIs but the feel isn't always the same, especially when you have to juggle with different platforms (all native widgets differ in subtle ways even when their function is the same).
note that this theme is generally not used anymore, being superseded by the WindowsVista one which uses native theming info from windows to render the widgets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It gives you ui for connecting signals and slots and configuring stuff as well, but few people use it. And qt singals and slots model is far superior to VB/Delphi style callbacks or c# delegates, but you have to program for a while to get why. Also - layouts in VB/Delphi weren't responsive, layouts made in QtDesigner are.
> ui for connecting signals and slots and configuring stuff as well, but few people use it. I try hard to do that (it saves on boilerplate), but the challenge is always in finding signals and slots with the same precise amount of parameters. Say I trigger a signal with no parameters and I want to connect it to a slot that takes a boolean always with the same value (e.g. a pressed() connected to a setEnabled(bool), wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the memory consumption of pyQT compared to electron apps?
I can't comment for pyQt. But the regular C++ Qt app I'm tinkering with at the moment uses 11MB private and about 50MB in shared memory for displaying a simple window with some nested widgets and scrollable lists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well it's a bit old school but it certainly looks functional. If the program under it is good, it's a very superficial comment. If only you'd see my emacs screen, it's unbelievably ugly and somehow, I work with it every day !
I was replying to a post that stated specifically that it was "non-ugly". In 2018, non-ugly means this : * https://assets.guitar-pro.com/1.3/images/www/guitar-pro-7/ca... * https://www.awn.com/sites/default/files/styles/original/publ... * http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/images/stories/_software/am... it's not what I use myself, being more of an i3/terminal guy, but it's absolutely what the clients want
I'm sure someone (and, in particular, their designers) think they look nice. But the thing about looks is that they're very subjective. However, if I'm using some OS/desktop combo, that means I find its UI, at the very least, acceptable. And thus any app that uses native UI look & feel on that platform is also acceptable. I can't say that for many custom-themed apps.
For example, out of your links, I would say that 2 are downright ugly, and the third is tolerable. And I'm not sure what "in 2018" has to do with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flexibility to do what, though? I'm genuinely curious: what doesn't Qt offer that a desktop app might need?
Why do you think programmers of all people are heavily migrating to Electron based editors like VS Code? Because they like using slow and bloated apps? And I'm not talking only of web programmers, I know plenty of C++ programmers who moved to VS Code.
Also, because QML is still not as good as the rest of Qt. But it's the right approach - a dedicated framework for desktop apps that is not built on things intended for completely different purposes (like HTML), but stealing the good ideas from there, like using a markup language to define the UI tree, and bindings.
Really, what we need is a cross-platform WPF with less fat. HTML is not it - it's cross-platform WPF with more fat, and not optimized for UI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at a tutorial, it looks like all it does is layout the form for you. That's a shame. Things closer to what the original VB was are sorely missed in modern computing.
It gives you ui for connecting signals and slots and configuring stuff as well, but few people use it. And qt singals and slots model is far superior to VB/Delphi style callbacks or c# delegates, but you have to program for a while to get why. Also - layouts in VB/Delphi weren't responsive, layouts made in QtDesigner are.