Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean?
The QtQuick compiler is only licensed for commercial use, according to their licensing page.
You can use the Qt Quick without compiling though it slows the loading.
Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
71–80 of 196 posts
Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean?
The QtQuick compiler is only licensed for commercial use, according to their licensing page.
QtQuick doesn't need to be compiled. That's just an optimization. I've never used it or needed it, though admittedly I haven't worked on massive QtQuick projects.
I think the main reason that's a commercial offering is that developers of proprietary software like shipping binaries instead of human-readable QML files.
Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
#73Really 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.
Qt is great and probably the best cross-platform app-development environment. Given that, why would you use this instead of just building a compiled package for a targeted platform?
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. Every project I've been part of does build a compiled binary for each supported target platform.
Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
#74Note 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 think that would be more feasible with something like wxWidgets or libui [0], which already use each platform's native widgets.
Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
#75Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean?
The QtQuick compiler is only licensed for commercial use, according to their licensing page.
The QtQuick compiler is only needed if you want to optimize startup performance (by compiling assets to binary form in the build process). I've never needed it. I'm guessing you've never actually tried QtQuick based on your comment.
Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
#77https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death... The end is neigh
Is it common for people to call it YavaScript?
Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
#78This reminds me of a time, when I used to work for a very large company. After an unfortunate amount of meetings and powerpoint presentations about ubiquity and compatibility, we ended up putting a Flash VM inside a Java client, to read HTML. Oh boy, sometimes you just walk away from a crash, but you're never the same.
I think this is misdirected criticism. WebAssembly runs at almost native speeds on a single very lightweight "VM".
I think this is perfectly relevant criticism. Browsers are a huge amount of overhead to add to a cross platform toolkit, for virtually no benefit. Distributing full fledged programs like this via browsers is simply going to be a shit user experience, on top of the already terrible user experience that browsers give.
Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the impression WASM was about writing parts of web apps in it, so they get more performance. I can't imagine many people would like to download a 60GB AAA game or something like Photoshop to run it in the browser.
Actually, if I could have Photoshop run in a browser, with its full feature set, and running at >90% of full native speed, that would be pretty awesome. And I'd even be willing to wait for the multi-GB download as long as it only happened once (with small deltas thereafter). Not saying we're there yet, but it's not hard to see where WASM could take us.
I can see where web assembly could take us, but I am confused about why people seem to want to go there.
Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is misdirected criticism. WebAssembly runs at almost native speeds on a single very lightweight "VM".
I think this is perfectly relevant criticism. Browsers are a huge amount of overhead to add to a cross platform toolkit, for virtually no benefit. Distributing full fledged programs like this via browsers is simply going to be a shit user experience, on top of the already terrible user experience that browsers give.
Webassembly isn't designed or intended to run exclusively in the browser, though. A lot of people seem to assume that native webassembly apps would be packaged with Electron but I think that when the language matures a bit, it should be possible to get thinner native VMs without the unnecessary bulk of a browser.