Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

blog.qt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 196 posts

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#81

Post by rictic »

alde wrote: post #29
k__ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is probably more download time, not run performance.

WebAssembly is binary packed bytecode and generally takes much less space than UTF-8 JavaScript source files.

Gzipped source in a high level language can be much smaller than the equivalent bytecode.

That's not why these demos "Hello Framework" demos are 3-7MB though. That's due to the cost of shipping an entire widget system that takes complete responsibility for everything between raw user input to pixels on the screen, without using many of the affordances of browser APIs. This is really awesome for emulation, sandboxing, and preservation of software, but it's not a good route for saving bytes for the user.

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#83

Post by Buttons840 »

ahartmetz wrote: post #61
xpaulbettsx wrote: post #52

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.

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

So you're saying there are projects where I cannot use Qt? The fact is, there exists projects that do not have the option of using Qt without paying for expensive licensing. Such projects should at least consider using Electron which might have significant non-technical advantages for them.

It is cool that what many consider to be the best commercial desktop GUI is also open source, I will admit that much. Still, we shouldn't complain too much when many projects choose to use Electron, it's licensing is just so much more permissive which is a significant advantage for many projects.

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#84

Post by movedx »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #59
rubyn00bie wrote: post #58

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?

Perfect for me: develop the front end using Qt (on an OSS licence) and Go, which is just a dumb data rendering layer with caching, and keep all the actual business logic server-side. I'll happily open-source a "shell" :)

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#85

Post by pcwalton »

ori_b wrote: post #78
alde wrote: post #23

Earlier 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.

There are a whole lot of native apps I just won't use because I don't want to go through the hassle of installing software. The macOS App Store is bad; Windows installers are worse. Entering a URL is a lot less friction.

I don't think the user experience of Web apps has to be worse than native, but even if we grant that it's worse, I'll take it over the pain of installing apps. And, based on the experiences of numerous SaaS companies, I'm far from alone in this. A lot of native app developers wail and gnash their teeth about how the Web is a technically inferior solution (which, again, I disagree with, but let's leave that aside). But, from my point of view, native apps on the mainstream desktop platforms have consistently failed to get deployment right, and that's terribly important to users in practice.

Take, say, LibreOffice. Is it better than Google Docs? Sure, probably. But I have such basic needs in word processing and spreadsheets that the marginally better user experience of the native app doesn't make up for the added annoyance of downloading LibreOffice and keeping it up to date. All indications are that most users are like me.

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#86

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

opencl wrote: post #60
movedx wrote: 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…

It has nothing to do with scale, it's either LGPL or pay for a commercial license. The commercial licenses are not cheap- $459 per seat per month.

Qt devs need to eat too and they don't have a bunch of sugar daddies like Linus.

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#87

Post by rms25 »

mappu wrote: 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…

Having used QML in the past, its made the most sense to me out of all the UI/Animation setups I have ever used. This sounds amazing

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#89

Post by mehrdadn »

xpaulbettsx wrote: post #52
freedomben wrote: post #38

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…

My main problem with Qt is just that it doesn't feel native, it's as simple as that. This trumps all other problems like the fact that it's a bazillion exabytes and painful to set up etc.

Re: Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

#90

Post by movedx »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #86
opencl wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with scale, it's either LGPL or pay for a commercial license. The commercial licenses are not cheap- $459 per seat per month.

Qt devs need to eat too and they don't have a bunch of sugar daddies like Linus.

Even so, that's EXPENSIVE! It rules out a startup I'd say.
Post reply on HN