[Qt-interest] Are there any disadvantages with OT

[Donal O'Connor]

I agree, creating splashy GUIs on QT is rather easy with stylesheets etc.
I'm a bit into the graphic art myself and I successfully created a nice GUI
on an embedded device with little effort. A bit of photoshop + stylesheets
works wonders!

http://automon.donaloconnor.net/http://killarneyonline.eu/automon/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/monitoringscreenshot.png


On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Dave Smith <dave at thesmithfam.org> wrote:

> On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:08 PM, David Ching wrote:
> > <sigh>  I'm not getting my point across.  No arguments that Qt is
> > simpler
> > and faster, and more enjoyable to develop with.  That does not
> > negate the
> > fact that to develop the kinds of UI you can do in minutes with .NET
> > would
> > take days in Qt because of the lack of widgets.  For example, please
> > tell me
> > how I would quickly use Qt to develop the apps shown in
> > http://www.telerik.com/products/winforms/sample-applications.aspx
> >
> > I honestly hope you can, because I would far rather use Qt than .NET
> > to
> > develop these kinds of apps.  But I don't know how.
>
>
> I could develop an app like that in Qt easily using stylesheets and
> designer, provided I had access to a talented graphic artist. Much of
> what you see there is graphic art and less about the widget toolkit.
>
> I agree with you that Qt's example apps are much less attractive than
> those shown at that URL. Nokia would be wise to invest in some graphic
> art to spice up their example apps. As is, they seem a bit dated.
>
> --Dave
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-interest mailing list
> Qt-interest at trolltech.com
> http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-interest-old/attachments/20100227/a8405dba/attachment.html