Important: Please read the Qt Code of Conduct - https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct
VS2015 Vs Qt vs C++Builder?
for developing android,desktop,and ..... project without native language solution we have this ways:
Qt:)i like it.
i invited people to comparing these products.
Does Qt have powerful Competitor?
i will contribute it and sharing result.
thanks for reply
i searched and i concluded that:
- +c++ builder for rapid aplication dev (RAD) is good or best.
- +new version of it support os=mac,linux,windows,android,ios,
- -it is not opensource.
- -it is not free.
- -till now it support windows,android(xamarin),winrt (it is not complete cross platform)
- -it is not free.
- +it is best choice for windows application
- it isn't opensource(or completely opensource)
- +it is opensource
- +it has free edition and opensource and edition commercial
- +it is cross platform
- +it is a .net for linux
you judge which is best.
thanks for attention
There's a flaw in your reasoning:
Qt is a library that can be used on multitude of platforms, with many different IDEs and compilers. You're comparing apples with oranges.
There is a free version of VS2015: VS2015 Community
And as kshegunov said Qt is not an IDE.
@kshegunov thanks for reply and contribution.
yes totally Qt is a framework ,but Builder c++ and VS2015 have compiler.this is different between them.
i comment from this viewpoint :
we consider as a technology or tools for creating our object.
and which technology is useful and accessible for all.
i remember when .net technology is most popular ,after some time java technology is most popular.i think Qt is second java. it is my opinion only.
yes Qt is not IDE.
the free vs is name express edition,i tested it,i prefer original version.
the top content is only my opinion,comment,you are free to select every thing.
thanks for contribution
I used this for many years and it has more controls than Qt Widgets and
in some regards easier than Qt and its RAD is very good.
But it cant compile for linux (last time i checked) so comparing these frameworks
with or without compilers is kinda mute.
If i could ONLY choose one, it would be Qt. :)
+it is a .net for linux
well actually there is a real .net for linux
Just a note. :) not really important.
@mrjj thanks for contribution
for better teaching Qt to my students i should have good reason for
why we select Qt in our works
your experience is valuable for me thanks
yes, i think Qt popularity is increased Progressive,like JAVA
mono-project xamarin is not free .so our students can not buy.:(
its open source ?
I have never heard it cost money?
yes,you are right but please pay attention:
snippet of license mono:
Mono is made up of many pieces of code, all of them open source, but different pieces of Mono use different licensing terms. For comments, corrections and updates, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org * Dual Licensing Parts of Mono are dual licensed, they are available to the public in GPL or LGPL forms, but we also offer those pieces under commercial terms from Xamarin for the cases where the GPL and the LGPL are not suitable. We have tried to pick the licenses that will maximize adoption of Mono, so we tend to use the MIT X11 or LGPL liceses. Contributions to dual-licensed module require that the author contributes the code under the terms of the MIT X11 code, or to sign an agreement that allows Novell to redistribute the code under other licenses. Contributions for other modules should be under the same license terms as the rest of the module, or under MIT X11 terms. For the actual license links in the Mono distribution see the bottom of this file. If you need further information, please contact email@example.com * The Modules
i try hard to select software that is nearest FSF. Qt is nearer than it.
richard stalman Warned free community (FSF) from license tyrant.(really they are hybrid)
ahh yes if closed source.
You should also know
If Qt had no free version . I be using this.
Its also very good.
stackprogramer last edited by
yes i tested wxwidgets ,gtk+ ,and ...but Qt is more powerful.
thanks for contribution.