[Interest] What don't you like about Qt?

[Vlad Stelmahovsky]

so the question: how to make it matter?

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:

> I've never seen it claimed that voting matters 1 iota.
>
> I guess what we're asking for here is more prioritization transparency?
>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 2:27 AM
> *From:* "Vlad Stelmahovsky" <vladstelmahovsky at gmail.com>
> *To:* "Jason H" <jhihn at gmx.com>
> *Cc:* interest <interest at qt-project.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] What don't you like about Qt?
> Actually you can vote for it and promote to other users to vote for it.
> More votes - more chances issue to be solved
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> This gets at what I don't like about Qt the most: As a user I have no
>> control of where it goes. I can (and do) file bugs and feature
>> suggestions... How they get prioritized, I have no control over. Sometimes
>> it's months, sometimes it's multiple years later, very often it's never (or
>> more correctly, still not implemented yet). This is despite being a paying
>> customer. Once the issue is entered, it might get tagged with the support
>> contract level I am on, but it's effectively out of my hands.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 8:35 AM
>> > From: "Konstantin Tokarev" <annulen at yandex.ru>
>> > To: "Jean-Michaël Celerier" <jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com>, "Jason
>> H" <jhihn at gmx.com>
>> > Cc: interest <interest at qt-project.org>, "Rob Allan" <
>> rob_allan at trimble.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [Interest] What don't you like about Qt?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 21.09.2016, 15:28, "Jean-Michaël Celerier" <jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.
>> com>:
>> > > Hey, there is a lot of interesting points in all these answers; some
>> similars, some not.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe a good way forward would be to try to pinpoint the problems
>> more precisely with an online platform such
>> > > as http://en.arguman.org/ ? Or even just some kind of google doc...
>> >
>> > I think wiki page would be a better alternative.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Starting from there would maybe make it easier for the Qt devs to
>> weigh the "for" and "against" for the stuff that is often mentioned ?
>> >
>> > I doubt anyone here is going to weigh anything besides patches
>> submitted to review.
>> >
>> > > Instead of having to find specific arguments in 45 mails...  And then
>> open some paths for contributions to try to alleviate the problems.
>> > >
>> > > My 0.0005 cents
>> > >
>> > > Best
>> > > Jean-Michaël
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:
>> > >>> I also can't help making a comparison with two other popular layout
>> > >>> frameworks: WPF/XAML, and Android/AXML. In both of these worlds,
>> the markup
>> > >>> language and the "code-behind" class hierarchy of UI elements are
>> > >>> absolutely equivalent 1st class citizens. Anything you can do in
>> XAML, you
>> > >>> can also do in the C# code-behind, whether it be creating controls,
>> > >>> changing their properties, altering layouts, etc. Likewise in
>> Android/AXML,
>> > >>> I can (if I choose) create FrameLayouts, RelativeLayouts,
>> TextViews, etc in
>> > >>> code, and arrange them and manipulate them any way I like, as an
>> > >>> alternative to creating an AXML designer layout.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> It seems unfortunate that Qt Quick doesn't take this approach, and
>> that the
>> > >>> "code-behind" experience is so limited. One reason that I've heard
>> why it
>> > >>> might have been done this way is that a rich and fully public C++
>> interface
>> > >>> may have hamstrung the developers too much, as there would be
>> constant
>> > >>> breaking changes from one release to the next. If that's true then
>> I guess
>> > >>> I understand that, but I would still rather put up with a rich C++
>> > >>> interface that had breaking changes at new releases, than the
>> relative
>> > >>> limited C++ interface we have now.
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm not sure I follow. Declarituce UI is in. QML, React (+JSX)  give
>> you decaritive layouts. It convergent evolution of stucture±properties+code
>> > >>
>> > >> XAML, WPF, Qt Widgets all have structure and properties but no
>> code.  You've got to create the objects then in another context, assign
>> code to them.
>> > >>
>> > >> If you are taking about how QQuickItems wrap C++ my understanding is
>> that's because of the scene graph. My perspective is that the C++ side is
>> better before I'm always having to drop from QML to C++ to expose stuff for
>> QML. So I really don't understand your issue?
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Konstantin
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Interest mailing list
>> Interest at qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Vlad
>



-- 
Best regards,
Vlad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20160923/248792bf/attachment.html>