[Interest] Bringing Qt, C++ To The Web

[Mandeep Sandhu]

> to know a minimum of 3 technologies, but more like 6: HTML, JS, CSS, MIME,

MIME's a tech?!?! I thought it's just a standard used in emails and
HTTP headers to define the content type.

> SQL, .NET or Java or PHP, not to mention Linux/IIS server administration.
>
> The reason I puke is the number of standards you have to be famialr with.
> The reason I kick the puppy is this cannot be the best paradigm software
> development can have. It is an organic evolution of indepenendt technologies
> that don't come together to make a race horse, they make some kind of
> creature that has an arm, and leg, a hoof, a claw, and am mouth and exit
> hole. It's very much like a Swiss army knife - does everything but damn
> dangerous when you use all the things at once.
>
> Wt on the other hand, is C++ and takes care of all of that for you. You can
> provide a CSS, but you don't have to. It doesn't matter if tomorrow the web
> ditches HTML for XML or pure javascript, or ditches MIME headers for JSON

MIME and JSON seem quite unrelated in this context. You probably meant
XML being ditched for JSON...which is already happening. JSON
increasingly seems to be the choice for data exchange over XML (esp
for web apps).

I don't think we can wish away these new web standards - CSS3/JS/HTML5
etc. If anything more and more people are adopting them.

Just my 2 cents.

-mandeep


> ones. The toolkit will take care of it for you. Don't recode, just
> recompile. And let the toolkit take care of browser sniffing. Everything
> made hard by traditional web development is made obsolete by Wt.
>
> And yes, I would love it if Qt and Wt merged.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nikos Chantziaras <realnc at gmail.com>
> To: interest at qt-project.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Bringing Qt, C++ To The Web
>
> On 17/01/13 17:51, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>>
>>
>> 17.01.2013, 19:38, "Nikos Chantziaras" <realnc at gmail.com>:
>>> On 17/01/13 17:31, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
>>>
>>>>  On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc at gmail.com
>>>>  <mailto:realnc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      I'm thinking more of ScummVM, DOSBox, Snes9x, etc.  Would you run
>>>> those
>>>>      on the server?  Sure you can do it.  But running on the client
>>>> instead
>>>>      has enormous benefits.  Having to download 10MB of JS is a small
>>>> price
>>>>      to pay.  If that really was such a concern, YouTube wouldn't bee
>>>> that
>>>>      popular.
>>>>
>>>>  And here we are finally, back to the thin client vs fat client debate
>>>>  :-) It always happens when webapps are involved.
>>>
>>> Not when you don't have a server, just dump web-space ;-)
>>>
>>> Google had the right idea with NaCL, but since other browsers don't plan
>>> to support it, we're stuck with JS.
>>
>> 'Stuck' is keyword here, because JS from Emcscripten is not going to run
>> as fast
>> as NaCl or even close to it. However, anyone can implement NaCl for
>> Firefox
>> and other browser via NPAPI plugin.
>
> If the browsers don't come with it out of the box, then people will have
> to download that plugin.  But if they have to download the plugin, then
> they might as well download the native executable application instead.
> The point it to be able to give a URL and have it just work without
> users having to manually download anything.  Pretty much what web
> deployment is about.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>