Qt Forum
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Search
    • Unsolved

    Call for Presentations - Qt World Summit

    Qt really worth to switch on?

    General and Desktop
    12
    14
    11425
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • L
      lgeyer last edited by

      C++ and widgets are still a first class citizen in Qt 5. There is no need to switch to QML / JavaScript, QML is still optional and works well with C++ (instead of JavaScript).

      QML is an additional option, not a replacement!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • B
        broadpeak last edited by

        Qt will be your friend.
        QML can be used with C++ without any problem, you don't have to use JavaScript. In the Qt5 you can use QWidget too (what this means: you don't have to re-design your widget based application).

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M
          morinehtar0 last edited by

          Did some work with wxWidgets couple of years ago.
          Didn't really like it much....
          Switched to Qt; absolutely loved it.
          Very consistent, very good documentation.
          signals/slots and threads very powerful.

          So in my opinion it is definitely worth switching !

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • R
            ryadav last edited by

            I've done MFC development on Windows and taken a look at wxWidget which copied ideas from MFC. You will find the transition to Qt enjoyable, and find yourself coding more quicker.

            There is more to Qt than GUI, so I do think it's worth the switch. Qt is a more modern framework with good design pattern principles, wxWidget is the old-school of coding imho!

            Kind Regards,
            Rajinder Yadav

            SafetyNet Test Driven Development
            http://safetynet.devmentor.org

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • A
              andre last edited by

              Don't expect impartial advice here. Most people hanging out here, your truly included, are Qt buffs. Sure we think Qt is great, but we cannot judge if it is really for you.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • M
                miroslav last edited by

                I am totally partial towards Qt, as Andre said, but how about stating the exact reasons explicitly :-)

                Community(Qt) > Community(wxWidgets)
                Functionality(Qt) > Functionality(wxWidgets)
                Documentation(qt) > Documentation(wxWidgets)
                QA(Qt) > QA(wxWidgets)
                EaseOfUse(Qt) > EaseOfUse(wxWidgets)

                I could probably find more. The main point though is that the current trends indicate that Qt will continue to outpace wxWidgets (or GTK, for that part),

                Mirko Boehm | mirko@kde.org | KDE e.V.
                FSFE Fellow
                Qt Certified Specialist

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  sfilippidis last edited by

                  I will agree with the previous posts: Qt is great, but you should "test-drive" it yourself and find out if it is the proper tool for your needs.

                  After using it, and since you have experience with another toolkit/framework, it would be interesting if you would give us a respective comparison of the two toolkits/frameworks! ;-)

                  https://www.filippidis.name/

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • M
                    marcus.fr last edited by

                    Thanks a lot for the inputs. I will surely give it a try.

                    From our side, as programmers, we would love easier/quicker coding which Qt provides over wxWidgets. However, I would also like to know if the users of our applications will get any disadvantages because of the framework we use. For instance, wxWidgets uses native widgets on all platforms. Drawing native widgets is probably much faster than drawing emulated widgets like Qt does. In addition, launching a Qt application (which contains the whole emulated UI) will be slower. Does this make significant impact on the user experience of a Qt application?

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • W
                      webmasterpdx last edited by

                      I see a lot of people saying that licensing isn't an issue. That's not true. If you are doing a commercial project and you don't want to give all your source away for free, then you'll need a commercial license. The QT license is expensive.
                      As regards use. You'll need to do a lot more messing about with wxWidgets that you won't need to do with QT. QT is a more professional product in that regard.
                      If using wxwidgets, I'd recommend using wxDevC++ for C++ development and Boa Constructor for wxPython development. These are visual development tools similar to Visual Studio. Note that Boa Constructor requires a new version to be able to run with the latest python tools and I had to get a version from a different site than the default. Easy enough to find through a little googling (can't remember the site off the top of my head).
                      Both are good tools, but if I were doing commercial development on a budget, I'd go with wxWidgets. If fully open source, I'd probably go with wxwidgets as I wouldn't want anyone using my software to have to worry about licensing. If doing a commercial project and I had a budget, I might go with QT....especially if doing phone software. wxWidget support for ios and windows phones is limited.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Chris Kawa
                        Chris Kawa Moderators last edited by Chris Kawa

                        @webmasterpdx

                        If you are doing a commercial project and you don't want to give all your source away for free, then you'll need a commercial license

                        That's not true. One of the licensing offerings of Qt is LGPL, which allows you to keep your app closed-sourced if you link to Qt libs dynamically. Since we're talking Windows platform that is the preferred deployment model anyway.

                        Btw. The thread is 4 years old and it's Qt not QT (Apple Quick Time) ;)

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 4
                        • First post
                          Last post