[Interest] Is there a good alternative to the QML Controls in Qt6 for native desktop integration purposes?

Nils Jeisecke nils.jeisecke at saltation.com
Fri Feb 25 08:43:16 CET 2022

Am 24.02.2022 um 15:38 hat Volker Hilsheimer geschrieben:

>Evidently, the people commenting in this thread care deeply enough
>about Qt on the desktop to participate in the discussion. And I suppose
>most of us on this list are software engineers, many perhaps for more
>reasons than to put food on the table. My question to you is: how can
>we make it easier, or more fun, or more motivating to contribute to Qt,
>and to help with making things better?

my 2 cents:

* Ensure people have trust in the Qt Company (again) by publicly
  guaranteeing that (the essential parts of) Qt will always be available
  under LGPL. Reconsider the LTS decision.

* Advertise it when things like the qt.labs.calendar items (previously only
  available under marketplace licenses, never for Qt 6) become available
  under LGPL (hopefully I am not mistaken here).

* More love for the Desktop ;-)

* Get rid of the V4 complexity (hello qmlsc/qmltc). Added on top of the
  scenegraph wizardry it is incredible difficult for non-insiders to
  help analyzing/debugging problems in this area. Also I'm not aware of
  any public technical documentation about how this stuff actually

* Offer commercial licenses under terms hardly anybody can refuse ;-)


Contributing documentation should be easier. Sometimes it's just about
adding little notes about things you've learned during development that
should be shared in the documentation.

Currently you can easily spend hours of work to get a single sentence
in. Setting up a local environment only to allow previewing/checking
documentation is way too complicated (at least that was my impression
when trying to do that last time, maybe this has changed with Q6/cmake?)


More information about the Interest mailing list