[Qt-interest] Are there any disadvantages with OT

[David Ching]

"Daniel Price" <daniel.price at fxhome.com> wrote in message 
news:902B548CE71AB640A08C9EDD266A8C88011EA0EC11 at DELOREAN.fx.local...
>>
>> Disagree, Visual Studio has much better designers than Qt Designer,
>> especially the VB/C# ones.
>
> Sure if you're willing to chain yourself to VB.net or C#! The C++ 
> experience in VC (MFC/ATL etc) is awful. The designer is based on 
> resources and only has a tiny selection of widgets, no layouts etc.
>

When you buy a 3rd party component framework, all of its components are 
installed in the Toolbox.  .NET provides TableLayout and FlowLayout (I think 
it's what they are called) which emulate Qt GridLayout and 
Horizontal/VerticalLayout respectively.



>> All the events (signals) generated by the
>> control are listed in a property inspector, and you double-click the
>> event
>> to generate a handler for it.
>
> That's not a good thing. It leads to code-mess with the application tied 
> to the UI. Very 1995. Change something in the UI and you have to change 
> the handler. Qt's signal system is far superior as are actions for 
> normalizing the code. And a lot of experiences Qt devs build their UIs in 
> code because of the extra flexibility Qt provides.
>

To use the shortcut of declaring slot "on_<objectname>_<signalname> without 
manually connecting QObject::connect(), Qt has the same limitation.  It's 
true that using QObject::connect() allows other objects beside the parent 
window to provide the slots, which is very useful.  But it's fairly easy to 
do this in .NET as well by cutting the code setting up the delegate in the 
.cs.designer file and pasting it into another file of the desired object. 
Moreover, the "partial" class concept of .NET makes it easy to put handlers 
of the same class into different files, decreasing the need to invent new 
handler classes.


>> 3rd party components can even write
>> their own
>> designer extensions so you can use their own UI to edit their
>> properties.
>>
>
> Very easy to do with Qt designer.
>

It might be easy, but it's not used very much by third party widgets that 
I've used (not that there are many available that suit my purpose).  It's 
not enough for the tool to provide a feature, there needs to be an ecosystem 
of 3rd party developers taking advantage of it for it to have any value.

-- David