Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
blog.qt.digia.com
Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
#2This is awesome. Congrats to the Qt team for a what looks like an excellent release! I can't wait to get my fingers dirty with this.
Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
#3Very impressive work, especially with the mobile integration! I hope this will become the next generation of multi-platform development tools, combining performance and flexibility.
However, the Android demo apps are 16MB and 23MB in size, respectively. For the larger one (Introduction to Qt5) the uncompressed sizes are: 9MB of data, 26MB native code, 134KB of dalvik code.
This looks like a major burden for low-end devices, even though I must admit the demo is looking great (and performs rather fluently on my HTC Vision, running Android 4.2.2).
Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
#4Well that's cute.
Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
#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 cross-platform widget toolkit that was successful in the market? So far, Java, Qt, WxWidgets, and Gtk have not succeeded as cross-platform GUI libraries. Are there any break-out successes I'm missing?
Otherwise, I don't see what the complaint is, so perhaps you can elucidate and downvote.
Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
#6"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…
How native are websites? Dont you use them on mobile devices?
Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
#7"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…
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 disadvantage for the user?
Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
#8"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…
How native are websites? Dont you use them on mobile devices?
How are websites holding up against the native App Store apps for apps?
Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
#9"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…
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 bridge to Java via the NDK. Possible, but a lot of work, and involves tossing a lot the value of both Qt and the Android SDK.
Re: Qt 5.1 Released With Android and iOS Technology Previews
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
How native are websites? Dont you use them on mobile devices?
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.