I feel cheated.

JKSH · 16 Sept 2018, 14:54

Surprise # 1 - The Public License Version doesn't work with Visual Studio.

The (L)GPL version of Qt does work with Visual Studio. http://blog.qt.io/blog/2018/02/26/qt-visual-studio-tools-2-2-0-released/

Alternatively, you can use the Visual Studio compiler in the (free) Qt Creator IDE.

aha_1980 · J JKSH 16 Sept 2018, 14:14

@JKSH

... and it has been working with Visual Studio since ages.

chrtsi · 16 Sept 2018, 16:04

@SGaist C++ GUI Programming with QT 4, Second Edition.

Page 590 - Installing Qt/Windows - 2nd paragraph.

"The GPL version of Qt will not work with Visual C++, so if you do not already have MinGW installed.....".

I notice none of you addresses the monthly price....

aha_1980 · C chrtsi 16 Sept 2018, 15:58

@chrtsi said in I feel cheated.:

C++ GUI Programming with QT 4, Second Edition.

The book is from 2008! I've been using Qt 4.8 (open source) with Visual Studio 2010 without problems. You also get a complete installer with MinGW, ready to use. And also note, that most of Qt is LGPL nowadays, which gives you even more freedom to develop closed source programs with it.

I notice none of you addresses the monthly price....

Because there is no monthly price if accept the LGPL resp. GPL. Where else do you get that?

Honestly, I don't understand your problem. If you don't want to use the open source version, well you have to pay. But that applies to all professional products, doesn't it?

Regards

chrtsi · 16 Sept 2018, 17:51

I don't have a problem with paying. I already pay for several products. My problem is that price of $450+ per MONTH is unreasonable. I develop and sell commercial software, so the closed source model is what I prefer. Thank you for the information about LGPL for QT. That "may" solve my problem. I apparently got ripped on the book as well.

aha_1980 · C chrtsi 16 Sept 2018, 17:08

@chrtsi

Just as note: some Add-On modules like QtCharts are only GPL, so you should avoid them in closed source software.

My problem is that price of $450+ per MONTH is unreasonable.

Please note that this is a user forum and 99% of us have no relationship with the Qt Company, so there's nothing we can do about. Please contact their sales people for more information about discounts.

Regards

SGaist · wrote on 16 Sept 2018, 20:41

Most of what was written for Qt 4 is still relevant for Qt 5 therefore that book is not useless. However for the installation part, double checking with the Supported Platofrm page in Qt's documentation isn't a bad idea.

chrtsi · 16 Oct 2018, 09:50

I downloaded and installed 5.11 of Qt (about a 5 hour process). Now I'm trying example 1 of the book, which starts with #include <QApplication>. VS can't find that. Anybody know what I'm supposed to put in my "include"project settings? I found the \Qt\5.11.1\winrt_armv7_msvc2017\include\qtwidgets folder, but that blows up on the next included .h file with: 1>c:\qt\5.11.1\winrt_armv7_msvc2017\include\qtwidgets\qapplication.h(43): fatal error C1083: Cannot open include file: 'QtWidgets/qtwidgetsglobal.h': No such file or directory, like it's looking for another qtwidgets folder.
Any quidance would be appreciated.

chrtsi · wrote on 17 Sept 2018, 18:58

Never mind responding. I find this product too frustrating to work with. I had a simple question, and I feel like I'm never going to get the answer after 8 hours of screwing with it. If anybody wants the book, send an Email to chrtsi@aol.com. If you send me the shipping container, postage paid, I'll give you the book for free. I won't have any use for it.

SGaist · wrote on 17 Sept 2018, 20:35

Unless you are targeting an ARM based device, why did you install that version ?

Since you are targetting desktop computer, then install one of the desktop version of Qt. You can find the full list here in Qt's documentation.

Did you took a look at the Qt for Windows page of Qt's documentation ?

If you want to use Visual Studio directly in place of Qt Creator. Then take a look at the Qt Visual Studio Tools developed exactly for that purpose.

chrtsi · 18 Sept 2018, 18:23

I installed that version because it isn't clear to somebody new which version to install. I'm sure that somebody with a history with Qt would have installed the correct one. Specifically, a blog reference above referred to that version as having enhancements for Visual Studio.

Those of you with a history with this product are, I'm sure, very happy with it. We who are seeing it for the first time are naturally confused. Lots of versions, very little guidance in the install information. I, who was simply looking for a replacement for MFC, really don't have the time to try to figure this thing out.

I'm sure that will get me some nasty comments. Oh well, I can live with it. As I said before, anybody who wants the book for free (pay the postage), you're welcome to it.

JonB · C chrtsi 18 Sept 2018, 16:30

@chrtsi
We don't do nasty comments here! We just wish you well in the decision you have made :)

chrtsi · wrote on 19 Sept 2018, 17:23

Apparently nobody is interested in the book. Thanks for your comments.

6thC · wrote on 20 Sept 2018, 01:41

Would you consider using Qt Creator for Qt development? (This isn't at all being said nasty-like, just in case)

I'd encourage you to at least get into Creator to see the example projects.

I feel your sentiment as I came from Microsoft land but I too never actually got MSVC / Qt project going - I got close but honestly... by the time I got my head around signals and slots and how it all worked - I'd begun to not only live with but like Qt Creator.

Something worth trying for before just giving up
(clearly we think so - we are still here).

ziller · wrote on 16 Oct 2018, 09:50

@chrtsi said in I feel cheated.:

Now I'm trying example 1 of the book, which starts with #include <QApplication>. VS can't find that. Anybody know what I'm supposed to put in my "include"project settings?

Sorry, but this is one of the things that you cannot just transfer from a Qt4 book to Qt5. Modules have been introduced, so QtWidgets are not the default and your project must explicitly specify that it wants to use it. Using a Qt5 book for learning to program with Qt5 is definitely preferable.

Kent-Dorfman · 15 Feb 2019, 05:48

I know it's troll bait, but I do have to agree with the OP about licensing fees. Monthly use fees are criminal. Really, for as much as I hate windoze, the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.

JKSH · 15 Feb 2019, 05:55

@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:

the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.

What about the LGPL perpetually free license for Qt?

J.Hilk · wrote on 15 Feb 2019, 05:54

@Kent-Dorfman Like almost everything in life, the listed licensing fees are basis for negotiation.

Contact the sales team, make it clear you want a license and aren't just trolling and stuff may or may not happen to your favor.

I don't agree with this approach, but its common practice throughout the world.
I personal always ask for the price I actually want, that might be why I'm so terrible and selling and rather (financially) poor x)

Kent-Dorfman · 15 Feb 2019, 13:03

@JKSH said in I feel cheated.:

@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:

the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.

What about the LGPL perpetually free license for Qt?

The OP was about commercial licensing fees. the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from. You too easily get into the "derivative works" issue. ...and really, commercial use should incur some sort of fee; just not the WindRiver model of paying, paying,and paying some more, ad infinitum.

kshegunov · wrote on 15 Feb 2019, 13:03

@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:

the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from

I disagree, on both counts.