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

Tue Sep 27 00:45:28 CEST 2016

wrt FUD around licensing :

here is a recent reddit thread where someone wasn't able to see that
QtCreator was actually a free IDE :
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/54foop/what_is_the_best_ide_for_game_development_on_mac/

> Oh, thank you! Their website was just confusing for me I couldn't figure
it out.

Best,
Jean-Michaël
<http://www.jcelerier.name>

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Vlad Stelmahovsky <
vladstelmahovsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20160927/228c94e0/attachment.html>