[Interest] L Word

Jérôme Godbout godboutj at amotus.ca
Mon May 3 18:09:56 CEST 2021

I did work for 2 operating room equipment that was using Qt (and consulting for another 1). We did not had issue with Qt on this based, yes we had a fixed version and the complete testing phase must be roll over for a changed. So you keep as little changed as possible when doing maintenance fixes. Major version cost a lot into testing and then we allow library and framework to be upgrade during those extensive tests phase.

One was even using Qml for the GUI, the consulting one was moving from Widget to Qml and the widget only was at a time where Qml was not existing.  I do not see the problems, you do have to cover all ground and the tests are exhaustive, but that would be true to any gui framework used into that field.

So it’s totally doable, sure those application doesn’t always stay on the latest is greatest, they are more the stable one until we do another major rev or a problem is found. That kind of make it hard to have to stable requirement and have connected devices, this often conflict, so most of those equipment stay off the grid for that matter.

I now work into smart city  and IoT cie inside the service division for custom client products now. But when the power and lightning of a city is in play, we still have to deliver robust infrastructure.

The library can be faulty (they all are to a different degree), but it’s more about knowing about it and handling it properly without effect or consequences to anybody that matter, if this ain’t a risk to anybody it can be acceptable to have something failing as long as it’s detected and the consequence of it has no impact. So, it’s all about testing and proper error handling and make sure there is no unturned stones.

Jérôme Godbout, B. Ing.

Software / Firmware Team Lead
O: (418) 682-3636 ext.: 114
C: (581) 777-0050
godboutj at dimonoff.com<mailto:godboutj at dimonoff.com>
1015 Avenue Wilfrid-Pelletier,
Québec, QC G1W 0C4, 4e étage

From: Interest <interest-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of eric.fedosejevs at gmail.com <eric.fedosejevs at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:24 AM
To: 'Benjamin TERRIER' <b.terrier at gmail.com>, 'Bob Hood' <bhood2 at comcast.net>
Cc: 'Qt Interest' <interest at qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] L Word
I find this whole argument that Qt is not appropriate for functional safety very puzzling. Aren’t vehicle dashboards QtC’s main market these days? What are vehicle dashboards if not safety critical?

If Qt is no longer appropriate for embedded medical devices, why is it still appropriate for vehicle dashboards?

From: Interest <interest-bounces at qt-project.org> On Behalf Of Benjamin TERRIER
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 11:27 AM
To: Bob Hood <bhood2 at comcast.net>
Cc: Qt Interest <interest at qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] L Word

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 15:15, Bob Hood <bhood2 at comcast.net<mailto:bhood2 at comcast.net>> wrote:
On 4/29/2021 4:02 AM, Bernhard Lindner wrote:

Obviously, Qt has nothing to do with this type of software engineering. And it's obviously

not suitable for functional safety (at least not if you take it seriously).

If this statement is true and Roland's statement that TQC actively courted that industry is also true, then it seems to me that he has a valid grievance, regardless of how he presents it.

TQC actively courted that industry, but it does not mean that they intended Qt to be part of the functional safety stack.
As a proof to my above statement I bring you the Qt Safe Renderer. It is a commercial product from TQC targeted to functional safety industry, so yes TQC has courted this industry.
However, it also means that Qt itself was never meant to be a part of the functional safety stack and is not supposed to mess with it.
The issue at hand here is not that Roland has a valid grievance or not. At least some of the issues he raised are valid.
The issue is that his emails are numerous and have a very low signal/noise ratio, that he is borderline insulting to anyone who is out of his industry and that in the end it lowers the value users are getting from this mailing list.
And personally I'd add that he is so badly advocating for his grievance that I'd prefer him not to advocate for the points where I agree with him.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20210503/fb19b8e5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13928 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20210503/fb19b8e5/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the Interest mailing list