[Qt-interest] Are there any disadvantages with OT

[Oliver.Knoll at comit.ch]

David Ching wrote on Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:09 AM:

> ...  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    

"Sales Dashboard" - Oh PLEASE, c'mon! Some nicely rendered "business charts" with "flushy flushy" mouse-over effects don't make an application yet! That is the problem when comparing toolkits: "managers" and other "decision makers" are so easiliy blended with these "sexy GUI" elements. Just add a few widgets with "compelling visual effects" and there you go: "We NEED this technology"! nah...

> I honestly hope you can, because I would far rather use Qt than .NET
> to develop these kinds of apps.  

Agreed: Qt does not offers these "out-of-the-box" "Manager/salespeople" widgets - and I hope it never will!Because it is so easy to build them by yourself (and yes, in my former company they DID this ribbon crap easily with Qt.)

And I am sure you could easily increase performance in your [you-name-it]-toolkit with OpenGL by simply replacing the target widget, just like Qt can? Or you can draw any QWidget with OpenGL, just as with Qt (http://doc.trolltech.com/4.6/demos-embeddeddialogs.html)


But IMHO the best part of Qt has not yet been discussed: the CLEAR separation of generated (UI) code and the actual implementation! Everything you create with Qt Designer is put into a separate file/namespace and you never see it mixed. And the simple power of signals/slots is so much more appealing than this observer-pattern in Java, for example (define an Observable-interface, add add/delete-observer methods, etc. - everything that is done automatically by the moc in Qt for you).

> But I don't know how.

As everyone knows: "You never stop learning in your life."


Cheers, Oliver 
-- 
Oliver Knoll
Dipl. Informatik-Ing. ETH
COMIT AG - ++41 79 520 95 22