[Development] The place of QML

[Donald Carr]

This; Widgets is stable API and we will not break your code if you
rely on it. Rejoice!

Qt 4.6 was a performance release; From Qt 4.5 -> Qt 4.6 we focused on
making Qt as performant as possible rather than introducing new
functionality. We reached the point of diminishing returns, QWidget is
very mature and hopefully very useful to people using it and will
continue to be useful going forwards.

Cheers,
Donald

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Peter Kümmel <syntheticpp at gmx.net> wrote:
> On 17.05.2012 12:35, Atlant Schmidt wrote:
>> Peter, et al.:
>>
>>> We don't wanna use obsolete stuff with a "architecture from
>>> the 90s" in times where "graphical technology has moved on" (Thiago).
>>
>>    Computer architectures don't necessarily "become obsolete".
>>    Oh, trends come and trends go, but the fundamental concepts
>>    go on forever. For example, Linux is quite popular even
>>    though it is arguably a "computer architecture from 1970".
>>
>>    Often, the proponents arguing for "new and improved" are
>>    simply arguing for the position they think will be most fun
>>    to work on; after all, it's always more fun to break exciting
>>    new ground than it is to have trod the same old sod yet again.
>>    But many of these new approaches are just "fashion" and if you
>>    wait a few years, fashions will change again and "old and
>>    obsolete" will be back in fashion (and often, simply because
>>    good sense has returned to the design community).
>>
>>
>>> Most people don't care what happens under the hood (QWidget
>>> or QML) when good desktop support is available.
>>
>>    And some of us *DO* care very much what goes on under the
>>    hood. Me, I live in an embedded world running on a ~450 MHz
>>    processor with very limited RAM and graphics. There's just
>>    enough "stuff" there to make the traditional Qt approach
>>    work (just barely) but if the only choice Qt intends to
>>    offer me in the future is going to burden me with the
>>    overhead of a JavaScript (or even web) runtime, then I'm
>>    going to need a new graphical framework.
>>
>>    Old and obsolete worked for me; New and improved (in this
>>    case) clearly isn't likely to.
>
> Then Qt Widgets is perfect for you: mature, stable API. You
> only would have a problem when you have to implement features
> which are much better supported by QML.
>
>>
>>                         Atlant
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: development-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch.com at qt-project.org [mailto:development-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Peter Kümmel
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 02:12
>> To: development at qt-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [Development] The place of QML
>>
>> On 16.05.2012 20:31, qtnext wrote:
>>> I am using Qt since 12 years or more... I have done a lot of work using qwidget, qgraphiscview, ....
>>> I have done some small apps with qml to display media : it works very well ... just the animation are a a litlle bit
>>> jerky and work not well on very small computer ...
>>> But now that Qt5 is here : the alpha seems very promising regarding performance ... and I have started a new big desktop
>>> application and I plan to use only Qml and it seems very promising .. I am sure that Quick2 is the way for new desktop
>>> application : We only need Qt desktop components, treeview, ... and it will rocks :)
>>
>> Yes, that's the point. Most people don't care what happens under the hood (QWidget or QML)
>> when good desktop support is available. But currently for desktop apps you have the choice
>> between a "obsolete architecture" (Thiago) and an incomplete QML stack.
>>
>> Non technicians don't care about if QWidget is done or not if it fits the needs,
>> but we are developers! We don't wanna use obsolete stuff with a
>> "architecture from the 90s" in times where "graphical technology has moved on" (Thiago).
>> But on the desktop we are forced to when we wanna a feature rich/complete framework.
>>
>> So all the QML<->QWidget discussions are mainly because there is no complete Qml support on the desktop.
>>
>> Desktop support has no high priority more anywhere.
>> It couldn't be so complex to make good Qml support on the desktop, simply throw
>> 5 man years on it (shouldn't be impossible when there are already 200 Qt developers
>> at Nokia alone). But it doesn't happen because nobody wanna invest in the desktop.
>>
>> So all you can do is using a system with a "obsolete architecture", diving deep
>> into QML and writing your own desktop elements, or waiting another one or two years.
>>
>> And I don't like any of the options.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> This e-mail and the information, including any attachments, it contains are intended to be a confidential communication only to the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development



-- 
-------------------------------
 °v°  Donald Carr
/(_)\ Vaguely Professional Penguin lover
 ^ ^

Cave canem, te necet lingendo
Chasing my own tail; hate to see me leave, love to watch me go