Comment by HarHarVeryFunny

Comment by HarHarVeryFunny a day ago

2 replies

For my taste there was already enough separation of UI and logic in a widget-based UI with callbacks or signals/slots. I was using Qt for desktop app development, so didn't see any benefit to Qt Quick and QML which seemed more intended for mobile, and a step away from native desktop feel. Qt Designer also helped separate UI from logic, but although it was great I found it didn't quite hit the mark. I would use it for prototyping, but then reimplement for real.

In general I got into Qt wanting a nice GUI toolkit for C++ on Linux. The cross-platform support was a bonus, but not something that I ever actually used. MOC was already an unwanted step away from pure C++ development, and QML would have been another one. At the same time Qt Quick and QML support seemed to suck all the wind out of further Qt development for desktop use.

rubymamis a day ago

I still don't hear any concrete feedback regarding QML and Qt Quick - the stack is very suited to desktop apps as well. My FOSS app (1,500,000 downloads) has a Kanban UI written in QML[1] and people seems to like it. I do think the choice of Javascript as the scripting language for QML is not ideal to say the least (although there were some improvements to type safety like using `required` in model-view, etc).

Also, most QML components are just C++ objects exposing QML api. And I think there are some compile flags to convert QML to C++ (even some JS code).

[1] https://www.notes-foss.com

  • HarHarVeryFunny a day ago

    > I still don't hear any concrete feedback regarding QML and Qt Quick

    Well, evidentially you chose/prefer that stack over Qt Widgets, presumably for some considered reason (unless it was just Nokia pushing that as the future, per their own mobile interests).

    There was definitely a change of focus when Nokia bought Trolltech. For me it was a negative one.