Does Qt need a modern C++ GUI API?
-
QtWidgets does not depend on OpenGL / DirectX, it is the "OpenGL / DirectX support":http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.0/qtgui/qtgui-index.html#opengl-and-opengl-es-integration in QtGui which does. If you don't want OpenGL support or a dependency on it build with <code>-no-opengl</code>.
This rule also applies for any other dependency (ICU and alike).
If your application does not run outside QtCreator your deployment is broken. That's something Qt can't or won't fix for you.
[quote author="utcenter" date="1356717680"]An ironic response straight from the "Qt5 documentation to all those "Do it yourself then!" people.[/quote]I'm not quite sure what you want to tell them exactly.
-
Well, maybe you will be sure about the following:
A few times already I have pointed out that C++ is no longer the primary language for Qt development.
Each and every time Qt people have denied that, claiming that C++ is still the primary language for Qt development.
But how can this be, if it is possible to write entire Qt applications without typing a single line of C++? How can something that you can go without be considered primary?
On the other hand, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to write a Qt5 application WITHOUT QML. You can only use C++ to write a Qt4 application in Qt5, but almost all of the Qt5 specific innovations are exclusively accessible through QML, therefore, in Qt5 C++ is no longer the primary language for Qt development, but a language to extend the framework. C++ is optional, QML isn't - which one is the primary?
Heck, you could even use QML markup to feed the MOC to generate entire C++ files, so that QML can be extended in QML without requiring any C++, while still using it behind the scenes, and call all C++ "boilerplate code" - because that is the purpose it serves in Qt5.
In fact a thin wrapper allows to use QML to create QWidget applications, so you can even substitute C++ with QML for QtGui...
The funny thing is that time after time I have acknowledged the benefits of QML, yet on the other side of this argument there hasn't been even a hint of admitting the reality of the situation, instead an idealistic and completely unrealistic picture is being presented with overzealousness and blind fanatical devotion that QML is perfect in every way and is all that Qt developers need. And IIRC it was your side of the argument that accused our in "lack of objectivity".
Hmm, perhaps some of those 164 people actually have a point over the 71 minority that is completely happy with QML? Perhaps it is wrong to discredit and disregard their opinion? I mean, what kind of community is this, if the few insiders can disregard the vast majority? And yes, I know Qt is not a democracy, I am not expecting of Qt to obey the majority demands, I am expecting of Qt to not disrespect and disregard their opinion.
-
You will have to differentiate between people not supporting a request and not supporting the way a request is made. I, yet again, do support the request for a native backend, but I do not support the negative campaining against Qt 5 and QtQuick, however, because most of it has no basis in fact and it is not beneficial to the original objective (your "...angry rant..." wasn't really thus far, was it). This does not mean that objective criticism is not allowed to level at Qt5 and QtQuick!
Qt5 is not just QtQuick, it is 30+ modules plus QtQuick, one of them requiring QML. If this means to you that "...C++ is no longer a development language for Qt5..." and that "...Qt5 is completely QML..." you maybe shouldn't recommend people to "...use Qt4 [as well]..." either, because C++ is no longer a development language for Qt4 and Qt4 is completely QML (and HTML/JS, which can be used to create applications in the same way QML can be used, due to the requirement of it to use QtWebKit), because QtQuick (and QtWebKit) exist(s) in Qt4 as well.
-
First of all, don't put words in my mouth, I NEVER said “…Qt5 is completely QML…”, I also NEVER said “…C++ is no longer a development language for Qt5…”, what I said is "C++ is no longer the primary language for Qt development".
Is it true that you can write complete applications with Qt without a single line of C++? Yes!
Is it true that you can even write QWidget applications in QML simply by creating a thin wrapper? Yes!
Is it true the vast majority of cool new features are exclusive to QML? Yes!It is true that QML was also in Qt4 - but in Qt4 QML was built on top of the QGV, it didn't had any exclusive features and its backend had a public native API to be used when necessary. That is NOT the case with QtQuick2.
So how is C++ the primary development language for Qt? Because Qt is written in C++? That's like saying C is the primary language for programming in Java, because Java is written in C and you can call native C code...
C++ is becoming a boilerplate/wrapper language in Qt. That's a fact!
QML is not the primary focus of Qt5? What other modules? Most of the stuff in Qt5 is legacy from Qt4, the most significant part of Qt5 is the scenegraph, which is dedicated to QML for as long as there is no public native API. The few other new bits of functionality in Qt5 are there because they are needed by QML/QtQuick. As are the hard-coded dependencies for OpenGL, regardless if a project uses it or not... The rest is just minor improvements of old functionality that was already present in Qt4.
Then, for the LAST TIME - I have no problem with QML, and in many cases I'd gladly use it. My problem is not with QML, but with the fact it is being enforced and there is no contemporary adequate native alternative. The developer base is being seduced by giving QML exclusive capabilities that are being omitted from having a public native API, even thou they are implemented in C++. So please, do not make false claims I am campaigning against QML. When I get to think about it, you surely do like to make things up and claim I said them... That is pretty lame of you... Especially after I stated explicitly several times I have no problem with the existence of QML. I am not campaigning against QML, I merely point out the downsides of QML while I campaign FOR a native API to use all the nice and time saving techniques that are given exclusively to QML, which is entirely within the realm of the possible, and wasn't done only to pimp QML and give it an artificial edge.
In "this video":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhWS_bN-T3k, outlining the new features of Qt5, like 70% of the time that actually presents any information is dedicated completely to QtQuick2. 25% are dedicated to the webkit, which is not new just features minor improvements. The rest 5% of the time is dedicated to mostly other old features that got minor improvements, and also JSON, which is once again tightly related to QML. So, if the numbers are normalized it turns out 90% of what's new about Qt5 is QtQuick2, which is QML, and if QML gets 90% of the attention then it is the primary development language for Qt5. Especially considering the many improvements it gets EXCLUSIVELY.
And finally - I may be making a mistake measuring by me - but if you ask me, a truth is a truth, regardless of its tone. If a person has a point, I don't care if I like that person, or dislike that person, or hate that person's very guts. A valid point is a valid point, regardless who expresses it. So what you are telling me is that:
-
first you discriminate against my opinion just because you don't like me
-
second you discriminate against everyone else who shares my opinion because you don't like me
You don't like my tone? I can't help you. You can only blame yourself. I am not prejudiced against any anyone, my attitude is determined entirely by the person in front if me. I don't respect people by default - respect is not granted but earned, and let me assure you, weaseling your way out of every inconvenient confrontation by means of false claims about me and throwing rocks back at me doesn't earn you any.
There was nothing wrong with my tone initially, it got sharper as the direct result of some people, including you, unloading tons of BS in ill attempts to discredit the validity of the community wish, expressed in this poll.
It is true there is plenty of anger, judging by the comments I read in the blog section, I am neither the only, nor the most drastic case, but that anger is entirely the product of Qt management. DO you honestly think those people are some lifeless, stuck up haters, who have nothing better to do than hate by default? Or is that anger the product of the piling up disappointment that is being completely ignored? The people that ask nicely get the same response as those, who have gone beyond the point of being nice - a broken record type of response that answers nothing, like it came out of the mouth of a politician...
Character varies, there are mellow people, there are edgy people. It is very childish of you to disregard the opinion people, just because they is not like you, or just because they are not like you want them to be.
I bet most of those now 166 people are nice, or at least nowhere nearly as unpleasant as me - and if your personal preferences really prevent you from being objective, just subtract me from the count and respect the rest, be an adult for god's sake. But to disregard and dismiss the opinion of what is the majority of people who visit this place, all because you don't like me - that's kind of pathetic, really... I am not running for a president, those are not "my people", your dislike of me should not undermine the validity of their opinions.
-
-
This is not about the community, their concerns and their undisputed validity and this is not about all the people who have voted in favor of native development, this is solely about your opinion and your way of expressing it I do not agree with and I do not support, not theirs (and if you are out for yet another personal opinion I think that it might be possible that some people who have voted as you do not either); criticizing you does not automatically mean criticizing them. And I do support native development too, have you forgotten? We already have had this, haven't we?
You are allowed to have your opinion as I am allowed to have mine.
This does not mean that the request for native development is disregarded or dismissed for no reason or that you are beeing ignored (you have been given the reasoning more than once), that there should be no native development (you've been confirmed that any substantial community efforts will be supported more than once), that you are not allowed to have your opinion or that I express a personal dislike other people will have to take the rap for; it does not even mean that I’m right and you are wrong – it just means that I have a different opinion on points you've raised, and that I do not find your arguments suitable enough to convince me of the contrary. People disagree ever and anon - that's life, which also makes you not always get what you want. But we already have had this as well, haven't we?
Yes, "...people that ask nicely get the same response as those, who have gone beyond the point of being nice...", no matter whether you are "...mellow.." or "...edgy...", because a "...truth is a truth...", as you have said.
I also have a different opinion on respect, which is granted by default and unconditionally, as it is fundamental to any interpersonal communication and social interaction. It is reputation which has to be earned, not respect; disagreement does not entitle anyone to lose respect or temper. This discussion has ended as far as I am concerned, because it has passed the point where it is beneficial to anyone.
-
You just don't know any better, do you? This is not about me, and it will not become about me regardless of your ill conceived attempts to make it so. Furthermore, I am pretty sure I can recall you and a few others disregarding the validity of this poll and its results, so if there is a quality you are proving right now, it would be spinelessness and being double-faced. First the poll was, in your own words "biased", then it was, again, in own words, "with insignificant participation", so it wasn't really valid, because "passively recruited or self-selective surveys are generally never representative" and it is "statistically wrong".
So let me ask you, how your desperate attempts to dismiss the validity of the poll can be considered regarding or respecting it?
And now, it is all about despicable me, "campaigning against QML" and claiming that "Qt5 is completely QML" and that "C++ is no longer a development language for Qt5", and somehow even thou you yourself claim to want it, you don't think Qt should get a native API because I didn't ask about it the way you think I should have? Funny how you don't stand up for that native API you claim to want, and the entire time are entirely dedicated to downplay me, all based on your personal preferences?
Well, feel free to create a forum for "Lukas Geyer's personal preferences", and play "virtuous knight on a white horse" there, because last time I checked, this forums was about Qt, not about your "ideals" and not about discriminating against others, who don't share them!
Furthermore, I don't give a broken penny about what you think, and that is not because I don't respect you, but because I respect the right of people to have their own views and express in their own way, and that includes you. You say that "respect is granted by default and unconditionally" and yet you totally disrespect my way of thinking and expressing, which is technically hypocrisy. So, PLEASE, this is not the place to preach your philosophies, this is a forum about Qt, and this is a thread about the need of a modern C++ GUI API, so if your claims that you want it too are true, then stand up for it IN YOUR OWN WAY like I do in my own... or get lost... If I ever find myself in need of moral lessons you will be the first to know, but if you feel that much about enforcing those, then feel free do it in person, but enough of your lame attempts to downplay the initiative because of your personal preferences, which do not belong here in the first place. And if you are spiteful enough to oppose what you claim to want just in spite of me, well that speaks out loud a lot about your qualities...
All you try to do is take a thread that is FOR a native API and turn it into a thread AGAINST me, and if you are half as decent as you claim, you should be ashamed of yourself!!!
-
Hey mans you doing great job by developing Qt.
But what the DUMB DECISION make improvment EXCLUSIVELY for QML. Guys realy WTF? You have new features like making 3D sound and this feature available only from QML. I write my game app on C++ and I wanna use QtAudioEngine but I cant!!! Look... u write feature on C++ and make it available in public only from QML. Are u serious? If so, Qt5 have PRIMARY LANGUAGE -> QML not C++, like utcenter say's.
Oh maybe I too young and something don't understand, but, this is realy bad way...
I see it as: create new feature on C++, and make it avalable from C++ and QML. Yes I need cool C++ framework with feature like QML.
-
I'm very disappointed that the new features in Qt5 are not accessible with C++.
And yes, I know that you don't care about my opinion, I just wanted to express it.Anyway, thanks for creating Qt4, I like it very much and I hope it will still be maintained for a long time so that I can avoid to use Qt5... at least till all the new bugs introduced in Qt5 are solved.
-
Paradox in this situation that the new features is written on C++... damn, how this can happen?
[quote author="Trino" date="1360964774"]I'm very disappointed that the new features in Qt5 are not accessible with C++.
And yes, I know that you don't care about my opinion, I just wanted to express it.Anyway, thanks for creating Qt4, I like it very much and I hope it will still be maintained for a long time so that I can avoid to use Qt5... at least till all the new bugs introduced in Qt5 are solved.
[/quote] -
The decision certainly has been influenced by marketing trends.We are going to see a lot of programming oriented to smart phones and all those tiny devices in the future.Digia has certainly seen that and is trying to be at the right place at the right time.
-
Yes trends... but answer me on one question: why new features writed on C++ not available from C++? They have some things that make him technically not compatible with C++ programs? Or what?
Looks like I asked several questions)))
I wanna say: guys u can kill two rabbits, have good C++ framework, with feature like QML.
-
Qt has really satisfied many of my programming needs,but the decision has kind of pissed me off too.I do not know much about the whys of the decision,but one thing is sure:companies go after profit and they probably have found more in promoting QML,guess we should keep our eyes open for alternatives and never put all the eggs in one basket.Any way c++ is still there and we just need to keep looking for good frameworks and libraries that fit the job.
-
There aren't many alternatives to Qt, and I won't be far from the truth if I chance the "many" to "any"... There is the morally outdated GTK built on top of the horrendous GObject, there is the morally outdated wXwidgets and probably the most viable "alternative" - JUCE, which is actually decent but APIs are a little illogical and do not cover as much ground as Qt (even though it covers some ground that Qt doesn't), not to mention the rather "humble" documentation and hardly any educational materials available.
There really aren't that many cross-platform C++ baskets to put your eggs into. You'd have to actually learn a few platform limited ones, with different APIs and potentially a different language, which is hardly convenient.
Qt is far from perfect and in many aspects deeply flawed, but the sad reality of the situation is there is no comparable tool that is better or comes sufficiently close, which makes the leaning towards QML that much worse. That is why many developers find themselves extorted into adopting QML, because that is what Qt is focusing development efforts on and the alternative to Qt and QML is even worse than QML, which conveniently sits in the role of the "lesser, more digestible and appealing evil".
-
[quote author="utcenter" date="1357401855"]
On the other hand, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to write a Qt5 application WITHOUT QML. You can only use C++ to write a Qt4 application in Qt5, but almost all of the Qt5 specific innovations are exclusively accessible through QML, therefore, in Qt5 C++ is no longer the primary language for Qt development, but a language to extend the framework. C++ is optional, QML isn't - which one is the primary? [/quote]Can you give an example for that? Which functions are exclusively accessible through QML?
QML is mighty, but not so mighty like the C++ Framework, I think. Somewhere was written, that C++ are the primary language for Qt, but I read it, when Nokia owns Qt. I don't know the plan of Digia, but if the C++ framework will be droped down, I will have to switch to HTML5...I also used another libraries like OpenCV and I cannot easily acess them through QML.
[quote author="utcenter" date="1361286905"]There aren't many alternatives to Qt...[/quote]
But for QML, the (better) alternative is HTML5.
-
[quote author="Serenity" date="1361352789"]
Can you give an example for that?
[/quote]
Qt5 have new features like making 3D sound and this feature available only from QML. Can u show me please how use this feature from C++? I wanna use QtAudioEngine but I cant.Without using hacks... after that I can say QML is primary language.
And like I say, what the dumb write features on C++ and make them available only from QML... maybe someone has "Woe from Wit"?
-
[quote author="Thomas Zander" date="1361353747"]3D sound? interesting, got a link?[/quote]
Use search... http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.0/qtmultimedia/audioengineoverview.html
Excellent features that I cannot integrate in my game app on C++ ... -
@hronom; you do realize you can combine QML and C++, right? Doing audio in QML while doing graphics and logic in C++ should be perfectly possible.
Saying you can't use it in your game is wrong, you can use it, the question is if you want to spent time learning QML ;) -
[quote author="Hronom" date="1361353124"]
Qt5 have new features like making 3D sound and this feature available only from QML. Can u show me please how use this feature from C++? I wanna use QtAudioEngine but I cant.
[/quote]:( :( :(
But there are still so a lot of much other things, which are not working in QML.
btw: Is that, what you are looking for: http://qt-project.org/wiki/QtAudio3D ?
