[Development] Question about Qt's future

Joshua Kolden joshua at crackcreative.com
Mon Apr 21 16:26:22 CEST 2014


On Apr 21, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Yves Bailly <yves.bailly at laposte.net> wrote:

> On 21/04/2014 04:53, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Em dom 20 abr 2014, às 22:37:11, md at rpzdesign.com escreveu:
>>> Isn't Qt Widgets so mature that they are stable?
>> 
>> They are.
> 
> But so much could still be done... as a basic example I stumbled upon
> very recently, why is it so hard to change the font of *one* item in
> a combo box??
> 

Trivial in QML.  

>> The design direction is because QML is easier to develop with,
> 
> Not for heavy-weight applications, even less when part of the UI is
> dynamically build at runtime according to context, config files, etc.
> 

I think you may have a miss perception about QML.  QML although young, is not a toy interface kit.  It may seem like it since it is so young, and because it’s light and easy to work with.  However it is actually a much better platform to do UI heavy lifting.  The unified scene graph of QtQuick gives substantial performance gains (at least as intended) over redraw and QML ease of use improves implementation time and maintainability for complex interfaces.

You could absolutely create QtCreator’s interface in QML.  We haven’t had the problems some have mentioned regarding a fuzzy line between view/controller javascript/c++,  so I’m not sure what the issue is there.  However we’ve seen significant development productivity gains by being able to implement and integrate UI with c++ backend in the running application in realtime.  Usually one developer can work entirely independently from the other.

Don’t be put off by the fact most QtQuick demos are on portable devices. Our project is a desktop app in the professional post production space.

Granted, we have some issues, there are still unimplemented features, bugs and performance issues that are being shaken out.  And as discussed elsewhere it may not be the perfect fit for legacy QtWidget apps (not that you couldn’t use both to some extent).  So while I am suspicious that there may be other concerns that I’m keeping an eye out for, “heavy-weight”, and dynamic UIs are QML’s sweet spot not weakness.  

You may also be interested in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvWeE3kurEQ


>> more modern,
>> and based on OpenGL. Widgets don't have that and will never be as efficient.
>> Therefore, the effort is directed towards the technology that has the potential
>> to make interfaces for 2017-2020.
> 
> Even in 2017-2020, we'll still have desktops. Phones or even tablets are just
> not suited for *real* work, and I don't see how they could be. A professional
> writer can type 100 words per minute on a keyboard, I doubt this will be
> even remotely possible on a tablet. Doing serious 3D modeling on a tablet
> is a joke. And think about the hundreds of mouse/keyboards shorcuts... if
> you remove them, as its the case on "modern" devices, you loose a lot in
> productivity.
> 
> QtCreator is a complex application, though not as heavy-weight as some I
> work on. Could it be redone "the right way", with *all* the UI in QML and
> the "business logic" in C++? would developing QtCreator this way be as efficient
> as it is today? and finally, would a user be as efficient with it on a
> "modern" device as he can be on a good'old desktop? Same question for Calligra
> and others.
> 
> QML has its merit, it's certainly perfect for some projects. But for all
> I've seen and tried until now, only for projects having a rather simple UI.
> For really complex UIs, QML seems not suitable - at least for now.
> 
> Mind, what I (and others) is talking about, are applications where user's
> productivity matters more than the UI being nice - or even looking "native".
> Take Blender: sure, the learning curve is steep. But once you know it, you
> can very very productive with it, *on any platform*, because it looks the
> same *on all platform*. "Looking native" might be a nice selling or demo
> thing, but it's just irrelevant (or even counter-productive) for a whole
> class of applications.
> 
> So please, please... keep improving widgets! :-) some things are unnecessary
> difficult to do, some features would be so nice to have...
> 
> -- 
> (o< | Yves Bailly                          | -o)
> //\ | Linux Dijon  : http://www.coagul.org | //\
> \_/ |                                      | \_/`
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development




More information about the Development mailing list