[Qt-interest] Are there any disadvantages with OT

[BRM]

----- Original Message ----

> From: David Ching <dc at remove-this.dcsoft.com>
> To: qt-interest at trolltech.com
> "Sean Harmer" wrote in message 
> news:4B890A45.6090607 at maps-technology.com...
> > Soon you will also be able to use QML for much of this out of the box as 
> > another alternative.
> > So you see it can be done in Qt quite easily. Forget the styling to start 
> > with and decompose it down into functional elements then apply the styling 
> > later. You could even make a Qt app look better than those by usign the 
> > cover flow effect in the central QGraphicsView for example. Management of 
> > such an app can also very easily be modelled using the QStateMachine 
> > framework to make your life even easier. You could even download the 
> > product images etc. from the web in real time using QNetworkAccessManager 
> > and friends. Data for the views can be linked ot the same underlying 
> > models for consistency/performance etc.
> > So the GUI can be replicated and there are all these other nice features 
> > to make your life easier :-)
> If this were the only game in town, it would be a pretty good game.  But I 
> still have a hard time convincing my clients for these reasons:
> 1) .NET is a drag and drop (and endlessly fiddle with properties) experience 
> to get the above.  Qt isn't.

Same in Qt.

> 2) With .NET the good styling is readily seen immediately.  Not with Qt 
> whose out of the box UI makes Management not believe in it.

Well, that's more due to your experience with it than anything else.
Just as with any other GUI builder you have to know how to use it to get the most out of it;
and when you don't - it shows to those you are trying to sell to.

> 3)  It's easier to hire a .NET developer than a Qt developer (in USA), so 
> codebase maintainability is better with .NET.

Any Java/C/C++ developer can pick up Qt without much issue and there are a lot of C++ developers in the USA.
Same for .Net. Sadly, too many colleges (in the USA) follow Microsoft and teach only Microsoft products and APIs,
making most of their students unusable for the rest of the world.

> 4) The target audience do not much care about nice things such as good 
> performance, keyboard navigation and accelerators and all the nice things Qt 
> makes it easy to get right.

I would always beg to differ on that one when it comes to performance.
How often do you hear someone complaining that the webpage doesn't load fast enough?
Or that some application takes a long time?

Users will always care about the perceivable performance[1] of the program.
 
> #3 is the root problem.  If Qt had momentum in USA especially for Windows, 
> perhaps convincing management of the rest would be reasonable.  I had hoped 
> when Qt became LPGL, Windows C++ programmers would start to use it more, but 
> judging from the job market (at least in the Silicon Valley, USA area) that 
> hasn't happened.

Part of the problem here is how you define a position.
Can you count open source experience? Sadly, many HR departments won't accept volunteer work as experience.
As a result, they shoot themselves in the foot for getting a lot of open source folks.

Ben

[1] Perceivable performance is different from general performance. General performance can be measured simply, and is what is normally taught regarding performance.
Perceivable performance however is a lot more subjective; and increases in I/O, processing power, memory, etc. do not always resolve.