[Interest] What you don't like about Qt

[Artem Sidyakin]

> Digia

From the 1st of May it’s The Qt Company now :)

> because of this attempt to squeeze licensing and royalties out of the general public
> I highly suspect the LGPL3 move was done to help squeeze

So, in your opinion it is totally fair to create “closed” products (TiVoization) using Open Source tools and libraries?
That's an interesting approach. Pity, that developer community would argue with that.

> NOBODY will pay royalties, period

Participating in calls and meetings with customers, I see a different picture.

> arthritic dog running in deep snow called QML

> script kiddies


I find the concept of dividing the application to front-end (QML) and back-end (C++) very convenient and helpful. That was a truly brilliant idea to implement such concept in Qt.
I used same approach being .NET/ASP.MVC developer back in my days. But I guess, I’m just a script-kiddy, so it explains.

> Just take a look at how badly QML runs on the Raspberry Pi with a quad core and Gig of RAM.
> http://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/raspberry-qt-part-12-qml-blows-big-stinky-chunks/

Yeah, this link was here before. Author was asked back then, how about benchmarking Qt Quick Controls 2? But I don’t remember his answer to that.
I have a stock RPi 3 on my desk and I use it in my development with QML. Cannot really complain about anything.

---
Artem Sidyakin

> On 23 Sep 2016, at 12:50, Roland Hughes <roland at logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
> 
> Tried replying to this earlier, but didn't see the content come up so will toss in my 0.0003 cents on this thread.
> 
> >>- C++ is difficult, Qt lacks quality bindings for mainstream languages
> - moc (on build systems that don't automate this step)
> - FUD around licensing
> 
> Well, Digia has itself to thank for FUD. I contacted Digia right after they took over Qt for a project I was working on. Yes, yes, we definitely needed a license. It was $5000 per developer and there were no royalties. Oh, no, you as a consultant cannot buy a commercial license and develop a product for a client, whoever's name is on the product must own the license. Less than two months later "owner" of the product contacted Digia directly. Yes, yes they definitely needed a license. It was many thousands of dollars more than what I was quoted AND they had to pay royalties. The bickering went back and forth for a while. Keep in mind this project was a front end for a service. Anyone could download the software but you had to subscribe to the service. Finally the person actually funding the project who was rumored to be Bill Gates' next door neighbor, contacted some lawyers who contacted Digia. No, No you don't need a license, go with God my child.
> 
> Not an isolated case. Client after client tells the same story. The licensing team at Digia must be paid on commission because _every_ use requires a license when you first contact them.
> 
> 
> What I don't like right now about Qt is the 3-legged arthritic dog running in deep snow called QML. It was a bastardized concept when first conceived and it hasn't gotten any better. Nokia started that concept which explains why they are non-existent in the phone market today.
> 
> The desperate grab for licensing revenue has them trying to make Qt all things to all people serving multiple masters. It will fail as everything which came before failed. You have to focus on one or two things and do them well. Remember how Java was going to cure cancer and end world hunger being used within every embedded device on the planet? The VM got so bloated trying to be all things to all people it can't even FIT on the embedded targets which were its original target. Don't tell me about how well it works on a Pi with 1-2Gig of RAM. It was originally targeted at single CPU (not multi-core) embedded processors with under 512Meg of RAM. Before you quibble there are millions of those things shipping in products every year. Not long ago I worked on such a device. It will ship 5-7 million in the next 3 years because it is the replacement/upgrade for multiple devices, one of which has an installed base of 10+ million globally.
> 
> >> FUD you say? From what I see, IPTV industry is massively switching away from Qt because LGPL3 is incompatible with clients' requirements.
> 
> 
> A great many reqs hitting my desk are switching to OpenGL and straight C++ because of this attempt to squeeze licensing and royalties out of the general public. I highly suspect the LGPL3 move was done to help squeeze the orange.
> 
> Given the current push for licensing revenue Qt will not be a marketable skill for consultants or employees within 3 years. NOBODY will pay royalties, period. Many will pay for reasonably priced development packages. Some will pay for support/maintenance. None will pay royalties.
> 
> >> * The goddamn 4.8 documentation still popping up prior to any other in
> google search.
> 
> I actually find that really handy. There is a _ton_ of 4.8 development and support going on.
> 
> >>* Features being QML-only instead of being usable from C++. I like coding
> in C++ (but I agree it's hard).
> 
> That should __never__ happen. It screams lack of commitment to the C++ world.
> 
> Some features not really cross-platform (e.g. in QtMultimedia, QAudioDecoder does not work everywhere, same for the 3D audio classes when there is no OpenAL).
> 
> That is a true violation of Qt culture, at least as I understood it when I started with Qt. The whole philosophy of cross-compile-and-go is violated there. This brought down many other tool sets over the decades. Remember Zinc? Cross platform between MAC, Windows, DOS and OS/2. Then it wasn't quite so cross, then it wasn't stand alone, Wind River consumed them to build their own proprietary framework.
> 
> >> On the other hand you consider waiting periods of 3-4 months for a Qt release already as problematic for your way of working. How does that fit?
> 
> Releases in general are a problem. This is another one of the multiple masters Qt is trying to serve and failing for both.
> 
> _Most_ serious embedded projects want one proven and stable release. This is why you still see so many people hitting 4.8 documentation keeping the link high. Due to regulatory and testing requirements some of these systems can take up to 7 years before they can legally sell the first unit (think surgical robot and clinical trials.) During that time period the tool set cannot change. Heck, I posted a link in here to a contract looking for Qt 3.3 developers which was less than a month old not too far back. Once a tool set is chosen it cannot be changed without starting much of the regulatory and testing process over again.
> 
> The "disposable" world, cell phone apps, Web stuff, etc., wants the latest and greatest bleeding edge. The skill level in that world has gotten so shabby many can only use scripting "tools" which place a massive burden on both processor and RAM, dramatically shortening battery life.
> 
> At some point in the very near future Digia will have to determine if it is going to serve script kiddies or serve the C++ embedded market. If it doesn't the market will end up deciding for it.
> 
> Over the past 5 months I have seen at least 3 C++ OpenGL reqs in my inbox for every C++ Qt req. Most of these are coming from sites which used to send out C++ Qt reqs. The situation has gotten so bad people are once again started to work with polyForth.
> 
> http://raspberryalphaomega.org.uk/2013/02/03/memory-map-thoughts-for-a-bare-metal-system/
> 
> I haven't seen polyForth since the 80s but it's coming back.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest