[Qt-interest] The argument for Qt

[Stephen Kelly]

Bob Hood wrote:

> I apologize if this might be a bit off-topic, but I'm looking for some
> talking points regarding Qt and its future.
> 
> We used Qt for an unpublished, R&D project, and I am of the opinion that
> it is the most elegant and comprehensive cross-platform toolkit ever
> created (so, of
> course, I am rather biased ;).  I've been trying to make the case to use
> Qt as a replacement for the toolkit in our commercial product, which is a
> hand-rolled system that is just too old anymore to keep up with our
> evolving needs.
> 
> The argument I keep coming up against is that Qt's future is uncertain for
> the desktop, and that we don't want to put ourselves in a hole with it as
> a
> result.  There are rumors (probably true) that Nokia will be terminating
> Qt development by the end of the year, and it is this sticking point that
> I am having a hard time getting past.

Where did you come accross this? Doesn't seem to match with the meltimi 
rumours.

> 
> I have pointed out that it is open source, but that just begets moans and
> eye rolls -- perfect justifiable in my opinion, given some of our
> experience with
> using open source to maintain a commercial product.  So that's probably
> not a good point to keep making.

Being open source or (Free) doesn't automatically make software better of 
course. There's a critical mass of developers-who-care-enough that need to 
be reached.

Some proprietary code and products are also quite rubbish. 'Open source' on 
it's own speaks nothing about quality.

It does speak about longevity though, where the developers-who-care-enough 
metric has already been met. I don't have enough information about whether 
it has been met with Qt yet. The first year of open governance will tell us 
that I guess.

> I have pointed out that the commercial end of the business is being
> handled by Digia, and since we actually maintain a license, we are being
> serviced by
> Digia and its support /at this very moment/.  Not enough.

Why is that not enough? Not enough information about digias commitment to 
Qt? There are other Qt-expert companies capable of providing support (I work 
for KDAB, though I don't speak for KDAB :) ).

> I have pointed to Qt's "open governance" as a move to protect it from the
> corporate "chaos" and ensure that it remains an open, viable and
> maintained
> toolkit.  Again, not enough.

Why is this not enough? Is it because open governance is so far not prooven 
in action?

> Is there anything more I can site that I haven't?

The use of Qt in the industry is not shrinking. New industries might be 
picking it up now (automotive).

As Scott says, we don't know what 2012 will hold, but it makes more sense to 
work with Qt now than to start with .Net IMO.