Does Qt need a modern C++ GUI API?
-
^^Thank you!!!
bq. The C++Builder roadmap has been announced and now includes exciting plans for 64-bit, C++11, ARM, iOS and Android.
'Nuff said. It was only obvious that ignoring developer base needs will have its consequences the moment there is an alternative.
-
bq. Nuff said. It was only obvious that ignoring developer base needs will have its consequences the moment there is an alternative.
LOL :O)
I came from C++ Builder to Qt and I can tell you that Qt is so much better than C++ Builder. And the funny thing: their roadmap says ARM, iOS and Android - so they do the very same like Nokia did with Qt framework - they will add support for the mobile market. The only difference: Qt already supports mobile devices and Embarcadero only has a roadmap. Maybe if they implement their roadmap they will see that they require a declarative language for the mobile market - I would laugh me. And if you finished your switch to C++ builder Nokia suddenly releases a C++ API for Qt ;O)
So I wish you a lot of fun with C++ builder - I worked several years with it and finally switched over to Qt framework. :O)
-
[quote author="Uwe Kindler" date="1339482347"]@utcenter
bq. Nuff said. It was only obvious that ignoring developer base needs will have its consequences the moment there is an alternative.
LOL :O)
I came from C++ Builder to Qt and I can tell you that Qt is so much better than C++ Builder. And the funny thing: their roadmap says ARM, iOS and Android - so they do the very same like Nokia did with Qt framework - they will add support for the mobile market. The only difference: Qt already supports mobile devices and Embarcadero only has a roadmap. Maybe if they implement their roadmap they will see that they require a declarative language for the mobile market - I would laugh me. And if you finished your switch to C++ builder Nokia suddenly releases a C++ API for Qt ;O)
So I wish you a lot of fun with C++ builder - I worked several years with it and finally switched over to Qt framework. :O)
[/quote]Which mobile platforms does Qt support ? Probably you meant those two platforms killed by Nokia. And to be a successful, a mobile framework needn't be declarative. First of all I would like to see Nokia release a platform which support Qt. The funny thing now is that all these debates go on Nokia don't have a platform that support their framework.
-
@Jayakrishnan.M
As far as I know (I'm not a mobile developer yet - but maybe in future) Qt supports:
- Symbian (I know you call it dead - but it is a mobile platform and it is currently supported by Qt)
- MeeGo Harmatten (the same like symbian)
- QNX
- Windows CE
- iOS (community port)
- Android (community port in alpha stage)
- RIM Playbook OS (based on QNX)
- Raspberry PI
How many mobile platforms supports C++ Builder?
bq. And to be a successful, a mobile framework needn’t be declarative
Which declarative mobile frameworks do you know besides QML?
-
Symbian and Meego are platforms with no future. The Android port is not progressing at all for lack of resources and some technical issues. There is a commercial port for ios by somebody. I agree with you on the RIM port, that is official. Pi is not mobile phone platform. Again Windows CE is not a mobile phone platform. What I was talking about was official support on mobile platforms. I don't know anything about c++ builder and I was not defending it. The point is that officially Qt is not available on any major mobile platforms. WP is Nokia's future and no Qt on WP.
-
Yes, it is really sad that Qt is not supported on WP.
But I think Symbian, iOS and RIM are major mobile platforms and the Android port is still progressing.
-
I'am not hopeful of the ios and Android ports. Would they ever attain production quality so that we reliably create quality apps ? That is my concern. Yet these are the most important mobile platforms now. BB has only around 7% market share. For ios, there is a commercial offering, though I'am not sure of its quality. Information is hard to come by. That is why I think, if c++ builder provides support for both ios and Android that alone will make it more valuable than Qt, for mobile development, though may be it is more difficult.
-
@Uwe - no professional developer will ever count on the community ports of Qt for Android and iOS, which are broken, incomplete and severely lacking in very important aspects. Nokia is unlikely to ever OFFICIALLY SUPPORT those platforms, and OFFICIAL SUPPORT is what professional developers want and paying consumers deserve.
The Android port hasn't moved an inch the last few moths, I am not aware if there is any development on the iOS front, but last time I checked was even worse.
Symbian is dead, Meego was stillborn, same appears to apply to Meltemi, Raspberry Pi is a small project for geeks and hardly a market opportunity, Windows CE is a goner, WP is not supported, RIM seems to be the only platform with some viability but it is in decline too. The mobile future of Qt is as bleak as its native GUI future...
I agree the API of Embarcadero is not as clean as that of Qt, but if they commit to officially supporting iOS and Android, plus already supporting Windows and MacOS, the professional edition of C++ builder is only 700$ - much cheaper than a commercial Qt license and with much wider market. At least Embarcadero are committed to C++, and if they officially commit to officially supporting iOS and Adroid - I am sold.
-
Yes -you are perfectly 100% right. C++ Builder is much better than Qt. You should really try it - and bug the people in the Embarcadero forums instead of the Qt users ;O). I also think seriously about changing back to C++ Builder because Nokia is so evil and forced me to use its unprofessional LGPL license, its outdated widgets libary and now they also started their evil QML conspiracy.
Nokia is so stupid. Instead of trying to make money with their rattly Low-Cost-Phones they should spend some millions to port Qt to iOS and Android and offer OFFICIAL SUPPORT to boost their competitors ;O).
-
Oh no, you are wrong, Nokia is so smart, smart enough to drop from 70% to 5% share for their flagship mobile OS and completely run it into the ground, smart enough to lose billions, give the boot to thousands of hard working people and become cheap enough for MS to take over, and when MS settles in Nokia, then the future of Qt gets really bleak.
Congrats on your infantile attempts of mockery, but you will really have to try harder for it to work. Or better off, don't try to insult me, if you have to say anything of value on the subject - feel free to, or GTFO ;) I don't recall claiming for C++ builder to be better, in fact, my powers of observation detect that I actually called it "not as clean as Qt" in the very last paragraph of my previous post. So why would you infer I said otherwise? In an attempt to build up your solid argument? All I said is if Embarcadero provide official iOS and Android support, I can live with it, as it will beat having to deal with two different frameworks with inconsistent APIs for desktop and mobile, as I am forced to do presently.
-
Ok -- everyone -- let's try to keep it civil in here. This is obviously an emotional issue for everyone involved and (like any good holy war) spirits tend to run a little high. But, nonetheless, let's all try to stick to coherent and productive discussion and keep the jabs and aggression (both passive and active) down to a minimum.
If that can't be done, then there's no point in continuing this thread.
-
bq. All I said is if Embarcadero provide official iOS and Android support, I can live with it, as it will beat having to deal with two different frameworks with inconsistent APIs for desktop and mobile, as I am forced to do presently.
Here are some infos about C++ Builder:
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/en/FireMonkey_Application_Platform
bq. Visual Component Library (VCL) is an object hierarchy of visual components that are supported on Windows only (in Win32 and Win64 applications).
The VCL is the C++ "widget" library of C++ Builder - comparable to the Qt C++ libraries. This library is supported on Windows only.
bq. You can create FireMonkey applications that target the Mac OS X, Win32, and Win64 platforms.
...
You can freely use the RTL in a FireMonkey application, but you cannot directly use the VCL in a FireMonkey application module.So you don't have consistent APIs for Windows and Max OS. Linux is not supported in any way. Android and iOS support is not available yet - only announced. In my opinion C++ Builder does not provide real cross platform support if an important desktop platform like Linux is missing completely.
And regarding development of Windows 64 Bit applications with C++ Builder - forget it:
bq. (C++Builder supports Win32 and Mac OS X applications, but does not support Win64 applications.)
-
Cross platform support including iOS and Android support is also provided by the C# Mono Project:
I haven’t used it so I can’t say anything about its quality.
-
^^ - C# Mono performance sucks BIG TIME, which is the last thing either a user or a developer needs on a mobile platform with weak CPU and low memory. Heck, even Java is faster than C# mono, albeit with an ever more horrendous memory bloat. And on Android, with C# mono you simply add yet another VM to run on that poor hardware, it is certainly inferior to use a Java frontend with a native C++ backend with the NDK.
@Jayakrishnan.. - yep, I've been using Mosync, unfortunate it is not a complete solution either, it supports all major mobile platforms allright, but for some reason they decided to not support desktops.
I am also looking at Juce, which fully supports Windows, Mac, Linux since kernel 2.6, iOS and there is even an android port being actively worked on. It is not very expensive too. It does seem as the most viable solution for me at this point.
There are also a few lower level C frameworks that support Android and iOS, SDL for one, but it is strictly low level, no widgets, components or whatsoever, not even a complete painting solution, although OpenGL is supported and there are already a few OpenGL accelerated OpenVG implementations, which could be of use. It is still too much work for me right now.
Sadly, the APIs of all those alternatives are inferior to Qt, which kind of makes me sad Nokia purchased Trolltech, for if not, today we could very well have had a still C++ centred, more flexible Qt with official support for those platforms.
-
bq. Sadly, the APIs of all those alternatives are inferior to Qt, which kind of makes me sad Nokia purchased Trolltech, for if not, today we could very well have had a still C++ centred, more flexible Qt with official support for those platforms.
I'm not very sad that Nokia purchased Trolltech because I use the LGPL version of the Qt framework and this license is only available because Nokia made it available. That decision gave Qt a great boost and accelerated further Qt development.
In my opinion Qt is and will remain a C++ centered framework and QML won't change that. I think, if QML desktop components are released and the first GUIs based completely or partly on QML will popup many concerns about QML will dissapear.
-
I don't think anyone will argue that LGPL licensing is a good thing, especially with commercial licensing being so ridiculously expensive... But the LGPL license through Nokia comes at a steep price - no hope of officially supporting the most popular and profitable mobile platforms. On the other hand, it is possible that Qt would have been opened to a LGPL license even without Nokia, whereas the lack of platform support can concretely be associated to Nokia.
Also I don't think Qt is C++ centered any more. C++ is being shifted in the bowels, from a primary language of programming to a language of extending and writing custom QML components. I can see the merits of such an approach, but when chosen to be exclusively developed, I can also see many downsides, which arise due to the lack of an alternative native API, not a public one anyway.
There are many areas where QML is a winning combination, may I say applicable to the majority of developers and application scenarios. There are however the scenarios where QML is no longer an advantage and becomes overhead, the only way to avoid is depriving yourself from all the features that are exclusive to QML.
QML is similar to a LEGO constructor, you get a number of ready-to-use components with different shapes and purpose, elements you can easily and quickly achieve general results. QML is applicable for people relying on extensive reuse of a few either stock or custom components , but when you change the components from few to many and reuse from extensive to none, the outcome of the equation changes. In my more custom line of work, like that of many others, the number of components is very high and the amount of their reuse is very low, to the point interfacing the component to QML becomes an extra and wasted effort, designing and connecting an application on QML and native level is a wasted effort too. This just adds another layer of considerations and work that has no actual purpose. At this point using QML is no longer about the ease and speed it normally brings, but a tedious task just to get the new nice features which aren't being incorporated into the old, "DONE" native API. And all this doesn't really stack with the resource overheads of QML too, as minimal as they might be on desktop machines.
I for one don't think the issue of so many people with QML is a product of finding QML hard, fearing change or whatnot. QML is simple and in many scenarios - perfectly applicable with great results. But then again, there are the "deeper", more "out of the box" scenarios where you are faced with the following choice:
a) - deal with QML interfacing even thou you don'y really need to, spend extra efforts so you can use all the new ready-to-use features
b) - keep to the old API, avoid the extra work to interface components to QML but spend extra efforts to replace the beneficial aspects of Qt QuickSo, while an undisputed improvement for many, there are those, to whom QML adds extra efforts, whether they chose to use it or avoid it or use it. And surely, you are free to pretend like QML never existed and in this regard neither did all the benefits of Qt Quick and do everything yourself, but THE POINT of using a framework is not having to keep reinventing the wheel but take advantage of that huge team of developers who got paid good money to add features to it.
That is the reason I think so MANY people are in favor of a new native API - because for as long as QtQuick's nice features are exclusive to QML, users are put in a situation, where using Qt becomes less than optimal, either by having to incorporate QML's limitation in your design and interface your components to it, or by having to re-implement QtQuick features you lose if you chose to avoid QML. It is discriminatory to the needs of many developers, benefiting some while hindering others. And as it turns out, despite such scenarios being fairly rare, and most developers are after more trivial apps, where QML is an undisputed advantage, this poll indicates 2/3 of the Qt developers visiting this forum want an alternative. This is not surprising at all, since we are talking about C++, which is a complex and performance oriented language, after all, if a developer is after lush eye-candy, C++ is probably the worst choice, developers vote C++ when they are interested in deeper, more complex, more advanced and out of the box scenarios, in which the merits of QML aren't that pronounced but questionable and often - an obvious downsite. Qt made it easy to achieve results with C++, and it is just wrong for all those benefits to be redirected away from C++, the language that made Qt, both literally and figuratively speaking.
-
I think there are a lot of fears and "maybes" and "negative expectations" around QML that hopefully will vanish when QML matures and also the sceptical developers realize, that it is a good and easy solution that partners with QWidget very well.
I thinks it is no surprise that a lot of people have fears because of this completely new thing. This always happens when something new comes out - even when the first train hit the rails many people had the strangest fears. They will dissapear if QML meatures and if there will be books and best practices that will answer the open questions.
So I'm quite optimistic that also you will change your mind - maybe sooner, maybe later :O)
-
You seem to have troubles understanding English, I am not quite sure what gave you away thou, is it your wait on QML to "meature" or is it the fact you completely failed to address anything of my long previous post, and instead just repeated what you said your very last post.
There is no problem with QML being new, complex or anything like that, on the contrary, it is nothing hard, nothing complex, it is just not applicable in many scenarios, and what is worse, it is not applicable when it comes to programming complex, productivity related software with vast functionality.
It is not an issue of maturity either, no matter how mature QML will get, it will not get any more applicable where it is simply not designed to be applicable, high productivity, custom, specialized software is simply NOT an issue addressed in its fundamental design. Just like maturity will never make PHP as fast as native code and applicable for writing operating systems in PHP, QML will never be applicable to writing big, complex, productivity oriented applications. QML is perfect for the applications it is being showcased with - media hubs, frontend to web services, trivial applications with limited functionality and whatnot, in other areas it becomes a burden to use for the sake of getting the benefits that are exclusive to QtQuick, not included in the design of the old GUI API and hard to implement. You end up either bothering with using QML or bothering with implementing the things you lose by staying away from QtQuick.
And just you still fail to understand this, let me put you in a way language will not be a barrier for you:
!http://i48.tinypic.com/35jf9es.png(qmlsucks)!
In general, the idea of QML is to improve on GUI implementations. In trivial apps there is little business logic and GUI represents a big part of the total code. With QtGui you can very well end up with more GUI code than logic code in the case of trivial applications, and QML addresses that issue perfectly, cutting on a significant portion of the code.
BUT then again, there are the kind of applications where GUI is a miniscule part of the total application, a negligible amount compared to the logic. There is a high number of custom UI elements that need to interact with the core logic, but the overall GUI portion of the code is tiny, elements are responsible for their custom drawing. In this case QML helps you save on that INSIGNIFICANT GUI part but adds significant overhead having to interface the SIGNIFICANT component logic to it, so the little benefit if QML is totally displaced MANY TIMES OVER.
And again, to avoid language barriers, here is an easy to get visual representation of this concept:
!http://i47.tinypic.com/jpvw2d.png(youlose)!
Hopefully now you, as well as others who have problem understanding finally get it :)
The one big point you seem to keep on missing is that logic cannot always be isolated from the GUI, and in many creativity/productivity oriented applications you need to have it exposed to the user interface, and it is at this point where interfacing it all to QML becomes more prominent than the saving on GUI construction and QML miserably fails and becomes a burden you have to conform to for the sake of the technical benefits of QtQuick, which are absent from and hard to implement with QtGui. Or alternatively, you ignore QML and act as if no one moved a finger at Qt to make it better the last 3 years, both cases suck!
And even thou serious software is a minority compared to trivial software, it is still FAR MORE IMPORTANT, as it is far more productive to both its developers and to its users. In this regard Qt is simply turning its back on developers of professional software, which perfectly explains the voicing of concerns from such people here in the forum as well as in blog and lab comments.
-
Thank you for this detailed explanation. I appreciate, that you have put a lot of energy into this work - it is almost worth an own wiki page.
But I do not completely agree with your statements.
Depending on your application and what you want to do, you always need to choose the right tool.
If QWidget is better suited for some parts of your application, then you should choose widgets and use QML only for those parts where it is better suited.The point that logic cannot always be isolated from the GUI might be true - but you should always try to get a separation between GUI and logic. We developed a quite complex application in Qt with a lot of GUI and lot of backend logic or device control functionality.
"http://www.cetoni.de/products/microreaction-system-qmix/software.html":http://www.cetoni.de/products/microreaction-system-qmix/software.html
In this application we achieved a quite good separation between GUI and logic. And I think QML can even help you to improve this design princible of GUI/Logic separation. We used QWidgets for our application. But now more and more customers ask for touchscreen support to control their devices. And I think, we are going to implement this with QML because it is simply better suite IMHO for such an interface. That means, we are going to mix QWidget and QML - we pick the right tool for the right task.
You always need to connect your GUI with your business logic. If you call it "glue code" for QML it is o.k. but also in C++ you need to write code to connect logic and GUI.
I do not see the real big differences between defining GUI in a .ui file and in a QML file. You do not need to implement javascript logic in QML and can simply use it as a kind of .ui replacement.