[Development] Qt for WebAssembly

[Jason H]

> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 at 1:09 PM
> From: "Tim Murison" <tim.murison at gmail.com>
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt for WebAssembly
>
> > <box type="soap">
...
> > </box>
> 
> +1, I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
> 
> I work in software consulting doing mobile and web work. While Qt has a
> compelling offering in the mobile and desktop space with Qml, web work
> has to be done with another toolkit. These days, react-native or
> Angular are derigeur. As a result it is not possible to effectively
> evangelize for Qt until Qt can match these technologies. Qt needs a web
> solution that is as well adapted to the platform and as flexible as the
> existing Qt solutions for mobile and desktop are. As described this 'Qt
> for WebAssembly' feature seems to result in web applications that would
> not be acceptable in many use cases.
> 
> I'd also like to echo and hopefully amplify what Jason H said about
> qmlweb. IMO, this is the solution that Qt should be embracing and
> integrating upstream. qmlweb aims to do what Qt has always done, make
> cross-platform development easy, efficient and indistinguishable from
> native development.

Thanks Tim, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. I *highly* recommend the Wt toolkit (https://www.webtoolkit.eu/widgets) , even if it's not LGPL. The Widget gallery is implemented in Wt, and you can see they have everything, and even a working TreeView! Your QWidget experience will transfer directly, but you'll have to get used to using Boost. And it's fast. I "feels" faster than any other website. 

If it were me (and wishes were fishes, we'd all eat for free) I'd take on QMLWeb even as a loss-leader. Even though it's not able to be commercialized, having an API that applies across paradigms strengthens the position of Qt. You'll learn it for one paradigm, then be able to carry it into another. Given that there are far more web developers, it' more likely that you'll extend them into a licenseable Qt territory, rather than Qt licensers move out of licensable territory. It's the same thing that Qt has already done - make desktop developers able to target Raspberry Pi Zeros, except on a much, much larger scale.

And at the end of the day, whenever I use a web technology I'm grumbling because I'm not using Qt. Qt is a far superior solution. But if it doesn't open itself to a wider audience it'll continue to be obscure (But still used by major companies). But my point is when I say "Qt" people ask what's that? Or they ask "you mean que tee"? (indicating a branding problem)