Qt long steep learning curve & expensive price!



  • Hello,

    I'm a student in the university and I'm planning to start my own -one man- company so my first step to do is choosing a reliable developing tool which I found Qt fits it but I found it very expensive (starts from 5500$) while Visual Studio and Xamarin much cheaper with a huge community (by comparing to Qt) and don't forget it's Microsoft for god sake!

    My knowledge in C++ just like C# so I don't care about learning a new programming language I only want a something will continue in the future with best productivity & performance.

    What do you suggest?

    BTW, I found Qt Quick learning curve is steep by comparing to Xamarin (may be because I found tons of references & courses about Xamarin while Qt Quick didn't)


  • Lifetime Qt Champion

    Hi
    Just as a note:
    If you dynamic link to Qt. You can use under open source, even for
    commercial projects. But you miss the dedicated support option.

    Well if you like c# , Visual Studio + Xamarin is a solid solution.

    It has to be mentioned that Qt Quick (QML) is declarative in nature and
    takes a bit longer to get into. And yes, one would wish for more books
    and tutorials.
    That said, Qt is the best framework i have ever used so for any desktop application,
    it would be my number one choice.



  • @mrjj Thanks,

    Actually I made my tests using Qt open source edition but I faced two main problems didn't appear with Xamarin:

    1. The interface of Qt Quick doesn't appear completely native under Android and iOS so tried to use Felgo which does it perfectly but why I need to pay money for Qt guys and Felgo?! This is absolute madness!
    2. I needed to make a test for running Android app connects directly with MySQL server so building MySQL driver for Qt under Android is absolutely a nightmare (BTW, I failed to build it) while I did it within less than 5 minutes with Xamarin!

    I forgot to mention that I failed to create Qt app supports RESTful so I used Felgo instead! But in Xamarin I did with first Google result I got!!!


  • Lifetime Qt Champion

    Hi
    1: well it does not wrap all possible elements on mobile platforms so sometimes you have to use native calls.
    2: Well it was decided to not ship a precompiled version of MySQL driver so developers could freely use what ever version they wish.

    It sounds like you are more into Xamarin already so why not just go with that ?



  • @mrjj

    It sounds like you are more into Xamarin already so why not just go with that ?

    I still didn't decide that because:

    1. I found Qt for WebAssembly post which make crazy about Qt so it's crystal clear that Qt maybe will work for web in the future because it uses Javascript which is an advanced step over Xamarin.
    2. Qt in general is open source so I'll never afraid from dropping any product by the owner company because the community will continue to support it (or another company will does) so Digia is a safe choice for me while Microsoft isn't.
    3. Qt tools supports Linux (which I fall in love with it) while Microsoft only supports Windows and Mac.

    I need to discuss all my concerns with you guys because my heart lean to Qt but my brain still consider Xamarin is a safe choice for me.


  • Moderators

    @Mehmet-Yilmaz said in Qt long steep learning curve & expensive price!:

    I found Qt for WebAssembly post which make crazy about Qt so it's crystal clear that Qt maybe will work for web in the future because it uses Javascript which is an advanced step over Xamarin.

    note, that QtWebAssembly uses static linking (means no LGPL here), so you will have to ship the source code if you want to use it commercially anyways.
    For mobile platforms only LGLv3 is available (with newer Qt versions) so still no commercial apps without publishing the source. if you have no license.



  • @raven-worx said in Qt long steep learning curve & expensive price!:

    note, that QtWebAssembly uses static linking (means no LGPL here), so you will have to ship the source code if you want to use it commercially anyways.
    For mobile platforms only LGLv3 is available (with newer Qt versions) so still no commercial apps without publishing the source. if you have no license.

    This brings me once again to the first post, Qt is very expensive for freelancers and small companies :(


  • Moderators

    @Mehmet-Yilmaz
    yes unfortunately. There was once a start-up license available which was definitely effortable even for one-man companies, but they ditched it


  • Lifetime Qt Champion

    @raven-worx said in Qt long steep learning curve & expensive price!:

    QtWebAssembly uses static linking (means no LGPL here

    One note about this statement: this is wrong.

    Static and LGPL is possible however, the constraints makes it usually complicated enough that people rather go with dynamic linking.

    See the links provided in this stack overflow answer.


  • Moderators

    @SGaist said in Qt long steep learning curve & expensive price!:

    One note about this statement: this is wrong.

    ok you are right. my answer wasnt complete.
    But i am not sure if this is still the case also for LGPLv3?

    Anyway it seems the open source license for QtWebAssembly platform plugin is GPL.



  • Thanks a lots guys for the nice replies.
    Unfortunately, It seems I'll go with Xamarin because it's much cheaper.



  • @Guest said in Qt long steep learning curve & expensive price!:

    I forgot to mention that I failed to create Qt app supports RESTful so I used Felgo instead! But in Xamarin I did with first Google result I got!!!

    Just asking out of curiosity. What do you mean by "supports RESTful"? REST is just a guideline on how to design server-side HTTP API. You can consume any HTTP API from Qt C++ (via QNetworkManager) or even from QML by using standard JavaScript XMLHTTPRequest without using Felgo. I do it all the time for our app which talks to our RESTful API server.



  • Sure $5000 a year per developper is a very excessive price.
    It may be smiling for companies like Audi but disqualify Qt on small markets at a time where most of the Developement Environments are free.

    Sure one could argue that a LGPL solution is available for free, but commercial projects cannot choose such solutions.

    I today have no idea about runtime fees but I guess it would be maybe better to increase a little bit runtime fees (variable costs) and drastically decrease developper licence cost (fix costs).

    Alain


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Qt Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.