[Development] Qt for WebAssembly

[Jason H]

> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 at 3:05 PM
> From: "Tim Murison" <tim.murison at gmail.com>
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt for WebAssembly
>
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> I looked into Wt briefly a few months ago, but for my kind of work, Qml
>  is a much better fit than widgets, hence qmlweb would be ideal if it
> were integrated into Qt. In fact I'd go as far as saying that not
> having a qmlweb type of solution has been the primary reason I haven't
> been able to use Qt in at least 3 commercial products, so anecdotally
> it is a direct cause of revenue loss for TQtC.

QML is just amazing rockstar tech, approaching ideals.

> > 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)
> 
> I agree with this also. For what it's worth, developer surveys tend to
> include all sorts of flavour-of-the-week web/mobile toolkits in their
> lists, and they never have Qt.

The RoW (rest of world) has no problem taking their web apps, and wrapping them in WebKit and making an app out of it. (Case, Point: Googles new Chat app is an Electron app) The web is trespassing into the space of applications. It's time the applications trespassed on the web.