No Qt and/or projects based on/related to Qt in any way
-
-
No! We'll make you use it and you can't possibly object to it. You have to. We'll find you and force you to use it because that's what we're all here for. To make people that don't want to use it use it against their will.
Seriously though - that's ok. Don't want it don't use it. Don't get stressed about it so much ;)
-
You tell him, @Chris-Kawa...and make sure he's bound by every open source license in existence! Zer vill be no proprietary code in ze system, ever!
-
-
@mzimmers We should create a meme for this. It happens in every part of programming it seems. I see this kind of stuff related to programming languages in a forum I am on. The rules are different there and we "contemplate" the meaning of this quite often. ;-)
-
<grumpy old whine mode on>
I think it's a combination of different social phenomena we experience in todays speedy media/information/options flooding times. The need for instant gratification, "cancelling" anything that doesn't align with your expectations, shaming anything that requires effort, no time to put any work in, because another shiny thing pops up every few moments and you don't want to get stuck with that thing that doesn't instantly work while others constantly brag about their achievements with that other new best thing.
I don't know OP and I can't speak for his case but I see more and more of something doesn't immediately work or I don't understand how it works, I try to fix it, I fail at first try, therefore it's ultimate garbage and needs to be publicly shamed and dragged through the mud.
Not to say Qt doesn't have problems. Oh it does and a lot of them, but still, it's a pretty good stuff in comparison and usually I've been able to workaround issues.
I think people really miss out on the feeling of that "aha!" moment you get after failing and failing, trying to solve an issue just to finally get it to work. You walk away with satisfaction, sense of accomplishment and new knowledge that it's fun to share or talk about with others. Maybe they just don't have time for that or at least they think it's not worth their time. I think it is.
I do employee recruitment sometimes and during interviews candidates would often list tons and tons of new technologies they presumably know and love but ask them any sort of even basic detail on any of those and they never heard of it. Because they never got to before jumping to the next best thing. And so you get a "senior developer" expert level in C#, C++, Java, JavaScript, HTML, Python, Android, IoT, Window, Linux, CMake, qmake, git, svn, perforce, all done in 2-3 years and they don't know what
dynamic_castis. Because why would they? They only used C++ for that one thing one time and then moved on to another tech claiming a mastery of the former. Same with Qt. Problem with installer? Piece of garbage, not worth time. No matter that it's just a small front for couple gigs of great tech you never got to.Hm, I think I got a bit off track here. Oh well. If you managed to get here thanks for reading my whining ;)
-
@Chris-Kawa yeah, we talked about this in another thread -- for all its countless qualities, Qt isn't a quick learn. As someone who cut his teeth in the days of COBOL and FORTRAN 77, I still struggle with most new technology (where new is defined as anything from the past 30 years). But I recognized early on that Qt is worth the effort. Why? It's a solid piece of work, it offers a lot, it's superbly documented, and the user forum is flat-out second to none.
I've found it a grind at times. Often my patience was only exceeded by that of those who were helping me. But I've almost always come out on the other end for the better. People who don't want to bother to learn it are welcome to use those marvelous technologies of .NET, JSON and Eclipse IDE.
-
@macfanpl So what do you use for development? Has your project hit 500KLOC yet? How many customers running your app?
Qt is pretty darn slick. If Microsoft's Win32 API had been composed like Qt, they would have conquered the world. The depth and completeness of Qt makes it a robust workhorse. I converted from "Petzold-style" Win32 recently. I transitioned from 32- to 64-bit without batting an eyelash. I'm confident I'll fly by Apple's ARM switch, while my competitors flounder.
Do you understand that there are software companies that develop exclusively for Windows, and they still use Qt because of the productivity?
