[Interest] query about QT textbooks

[Dan White]

My response to your question is a request for more details about your current abilities as a software developer.

What platforms and languages (compiled, scripted, anything that can run) are you comfortable and experienced with ?

The older versions of Qt were exclusively C++, so if you did not know C++, the first step would have been to start learning C++

See where I am going with this ?

I feel your question is too broad to be answered easily.

“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”
Bill Waterson (Calvin & Hobbes)

----- Mark Griffith <markgriffith at yahoo.com> wrote:
> .
> 
> I'd like to ask about books anyone can recommend for beginner developers using QT. The tutorials on the site have some value, but they really aren't good enough, as I explain below. If you're bored easily, don't read on. 
> 
> --  --  --  --  --
> 
> I'm a bit wearied by the constant use of undefined special words like 'binaries', 'declarative', 'parent', and sentences like "To use the states.png image in your application, you must copy it to the
>  project directory (same subdirectory as the QML file) from the examples
>  directory in the Qt installation directory." where this is the first time 'states.png' gets mentioned. 
> 
> I'm not totally computer-illiterate - I have reasonable maths skills as an ex-economist, and have built several websites unaided in straight HTML without using an editing package or code editor. I have written simple programs. But I do have a life outside this world, and would like to see software documentation conform to the same standards of clarity we expect from (say) people who write company annual reports to shareholders - which is about the same level of inherent complexity that needs to be cleaned up. 
> 
> Also, I must concede that software writing has improved hugely in twenty years. It's gone from about 10% comprehensible to about 40% comprehensible, which is of course a massive achievement, though nowhere near good enough. 
> 
> Nonetheless, software documentation, QT included, still has a long long way to go before it is as lucid as it could be and should be. 
> 
> It could all be hugely better if software firms forgot technical writers and employed real commercial writers (like the writers who work at ad agencies and magazines) to rewrite and re-edit all these tutorials. That and proper footnotes _on the same page_ defining each term and offering extra clarity would transform computing overnight. 
> 
> Rant over. Thanks if you have book suggestions. 
> 
> Mark