@SamiV123 said in Qt Window positioning:
Somehow maintaining things is also possible..just look at Win32 API that is stable and one can take an app written 20 years ago and still run it today.
I am not sure if fixing a bug, then noticing it breaks certain software and because of that writing a work around to keep the bug when that software is running is a good strategy. You don't get the best API when it's totally bloated. It takes more time to maintain a larger API which means less new features (and fewer bug fixes).
Also, I choose C++ as programming language because I need good performance. This also requires good performance of the libraries I'm using. Qt is one of those libraries. I would claim that bloated libraries (with work arounds like in Windows) steal some of your performance (work arounds are not free if you don't need them).
Honestly, we are also still using Qt 5. (But we also have one student using Qt 6. It is not too much work to port.) We are a small company which mostly survives not from software sales. We don't have the money (and time) to constantly switch versions. I am not sure I need 20 year-old software running perfectly fine today (probably it wouldn't because we didn't have 4k high-resolution displays back then). However, it would be nice to only have to switch every 10 or 12 years or so. Large software companies might be able to switch every 3 years, but small companies (and hobby projects and small open source projects) might need much longer stretches.
So, I agree that we need longer maintenance periods, but I'm not sure if the Windows model is the right one. (Apple's maintenance model is too short for me. They are already fading out Rosetta 2 and my 2015 MacBook Pro has also not been supported for several OS versions for no specific reason.)
PS: Windows also occasionally drops support. At some time they have dropped support for 16-bit applications (but that has been probably more than 20 years). I also remember that I couldn't install some software (which would have still run perfectly otherwise) because my hard drive was too large. (Remember back in the day when installers would compute install size and would let you install if there wasn't enough space? Once your hard drive gets larger than they expected you get negative hard drive sizes reported.)