Live data from Hacker News

Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

blog.qt.io

61–70 of 196 posts

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#61

Really surprised and saddened by the negative comments here. Qt is an amazing framework that has been around for nearly 30 years. Developing with it is a great experience, probably the most enjoyable coding I've done. I have faith that the Qt project won't spend time shipping this if it doesn't offer advantages. Give them time, and a little benefit of the doubt based on a very long history of excellence.

I'm not sure I buy that, are you saying that the only reason that Qt hasn't completely taken over writing native software on (even desktop! not to mention mobile where Qt also works), is a marketing problem? I would argue that Qt's problem is: * Licensing is expensive (look it up, you can't just use it for free for large-scale commercial projects, contrary to what many people believe) * Getting started with Qt is pai…

The licensing bit is really trivial to summarize: It's LGPLv3. Formerly v2, so now it can't be used for free in some applications where it formerly could.

You can absolutely use it for free in any project, as long as you conform to LGPLv3.

Regarding JS: You're not supposed to write more than glue logic in JS - well, that's the practical experience. For some reason, the Qt company recommends more JS use than that.

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#62
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Licensing is expensive (look it up, you can't just use it for free for large-scale commercial projects, contrary to what many people believe) I should look this up because Qt is something I've got my eyes on for small projects that could get big. On that note, are you able to define "large-scale" for me? Would a desktop app' interfacing with a remote API be "large-scale"? > You have to write in languages that are n…

You'll need a license if it's not open source as far as I can tell... I would love to use Qt but their licensing and terms just immediately kill it for me: https://www1.qt.io/faq/#_Toc_2_5

I think you misread that. For any use, you need a licence, and the possible licences to choose from are 1. Commercial, or 2. Open source (GPL or LGPL).

You can make commercial software using one if the open source licenses. (Of course; otherwise it wouldn't be an open source licence.)

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I buy that, are you saying that the only reason that Qt hasn't completely taken over writing native software on (even desktop! not to mention mobile where Qt also works), is a marketing problem? I would argue that Qt's problem is: * Licensing is expensive (look it up, you can't just use it for free for large-scale commercial projects, contrary to what many people believe) * Getting started with Qt is pai…

The licensing bit is really trivial to summarize: It's LGPLv3. Formerly v2, so now it can't be used for free in some applications where it formerly could. You can absolutely use it for free in any project, as long as you conform to LGPLv3. Regarding JS: You're not supposed to write more than glue logic in JS - well, that's the practical experience. For some reason, the Qt company recommends more JS use than that.

It's not though if you want to use Qt Quick

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#64
post #35

Note that Qt has two separate technology previews for porting Qt apps to run in the web browser: Qt WebGL streaming (qplatform/qpa plugin): The Qt binary runs on your PC as normal, but instead of opening an X11/Win32 window, opens a network port. You can open the URL in a browser to see the interface. Only one connection is allowed / only one user can interact with the app at a time. Technology preview since 5.10, wi…

They should port the rendering of the qt components to Dom/css with a web assembly backend. That would seem like a web app but allow for c++ code reuse.

I don't think it's doable on a Dom/css in a meaningful way as the semantics are too different.

But a webgl canvas id doable and I think what they are aiming for. Which would be great for QML.

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The licensing bit is really trivial to summarize: It's LGPLv3. Formerly v2, so now it can't be used for free in some applications where it formerly could. You can absolutely use it for free in any project, as long as you conform to LGPLv3. Regarding JS: You're not supposed to write more than glue logic in JS - well, that's the practical experience. For some reason, the Qt company recommends more JS use than that.

It's not though if you want to use Qt Quick

What do you mean?

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll need a license if it's not open source as far as I can tell... I would love to use Qt but their licensing and terms just immediately kill it for me: https://www1.qt.io/faq/#_Toc_2_5

It's LGPL-compatible, though, isn't it? Can't you just wall off the Qt layer in a separate library, and release the source to that?

IANA lawyer, but my understanding is that you are correct. The LGPL doesn't force you to release the entire source, unless you are shipping a single static binary. If you dynamically link, you are good to go.

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#68
Unfortunately, this port seems to lack accessibility for blind people and others that require assistive technology. My conclusion is based on the demos linked elsewhere on this thread. [0] I have no idea how to make a conventional GUI toolkit accessible with ARIA, but I hope the Qt developers figure it out.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I tested on Windows with a screen reader and Chrome.

[0]: https://msorvig.github.io/qt-webassembly-examples/

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#69

Really surprised and saddened by the negative comments here. Qt is an amazing framework that has been around for nearly 30 years. Developing with it is a great experience, probably the most enjoyable coding I've done. I have faith that the Qt project won't spend time shipping this if it doesn't offer advantages. Give them time, and a little benefit of the doubt based on a very long history of excellence.

I'm not sure I buy that, are you saying that the only reason that Qt hasn't completely taken over writing native software on (even desktop! not to mention mobile where Qt also works), is a marketing problem? I would argue that Qt's problem is: * Licensing is expensive (look it up, you can't just use it for free for large-scale commercial projects, contrary to what many people believe) * Getting started with Qt is pai…

* Licensing: IANA lawyer, but my understanding is that the LGPL doesn't force you to release the entire source, unless you are shipping a single static binary or a custom version of Qt. If you dynamically link, you are good to go.

* Getting started: I agree it is painful. There's a definite learning curve here. I believe it's worth it obviously, but that's obviously subjective.

* Language choices: There are binding for quite a few other languages. There's a lot of pyqt projects out there. But I disagree that C++ is painful - it really depends on who wrote it. Well written C++ is pleasant, poorly written C++ that abuses things is awful. The javascript portion does suck tho, you are right. It will improve, but it doesn't improve quickly.

* Deploy bit: you predicted my argument here. I favor the system package manager.

Post reply on HN