[Interest] How I would like to see Qt, was Re: L Word

Rui Oliveira ruilvo at hotmail.com
Mon May 3 18:41:29 CEST 2021

If you allow me my two cents:

I'm not a good enough programmer to know how does one deal with the 
promises of long term support for certain hardware while juggling with 
new exciting hardware. And I do agree that likely 90% of the edge cases 
will be commercial situations that should pay for their support. The 
exact business model is a whole other can of worms and I'm not economist 
or manager either.

What I would like to see, though, was a tech stack that isn't 
"duplicated" and doesn't feel like it's competing with itself, that ends 
up with both offerings leaving users choosing the least bad option. 
That's also how I guess most people feel about GUI's in C++ and Qt as a 
whole. I've heard the "Qt is the least bad X-platform C++ GUI SDK". Not 
best, just least bad.

Also, look at some subtle stuff. I've had people agree with me that Qt 
Quick docs are subpar compared with the rest of the framework, 
especially on the QML side. Are we dealing with lower standards or just 
lack of maturity?

I look at other ecosystems with envy. Now especially C#. Xamarin now 
soon-to-be .NET MAUI, Avalonia UI, Uno Framework, Blazor WASM... I love 
C++, and I don't want to change. I even like most of the C++ evolution 
is having since the C++17, C++20, and now the expected C++23. But grass 
does look greener on the other side...

As someone said in the original thread, I think mostly people are bitter 
out of "sadness" and not out of hate. We want this to work.

Oh well,

Às 17:23 de 03/05/2021, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) escreveu:
> On 5/3/21, 11:40 AM, "Interest on behalf of Matthew Woehlke" <interest-bounces at qt-project.org on behalf of mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com> wrote:
>      Isn't it obvious? Once upon a time, before they "lost their way", Qt was
>      useful to him. He was passionate about *that* Qt and wants it back.
>      I understand *exactly* how he feels.
> I get the frustration.  But I think the world moved, and Qt didn't really have a choice.  If you are building for a single OS and single (fixed) hardware, you can keep code stable.  How do you do that when you are cross platform and have to make changes to support M1 chips in new Macs?
> I don't think you can, certainly not for every OS and Qt version that worked before.  If you need specific hardware/OS supported longer term, but need updates to Qt, Qt has the option of paying for commercial support for that configuration.  Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
> Expecting Qt to work for new compilers/OSes, but not break _anything_ doesn't seem realistic when even the C++ language itself is changing.
> What would you have Qt do differently?
> Brett
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

More information about the Interest mailing list