6 ms·

Please, I beg of you, do not create an iOS app using this library. Look at that screenshot: https://github.com/therecipe/qt/blob/master/internal/screenshots/ios

by nardi 10y ago

Please, I beg of you, do not create an iOS app using this library. Look at that screenshot: https://github.com/therecipe/qt/blob/master/internal/screenshots/ios_portrait.png https://github.com/therecipe/qt/blob/master/internal/screens... It looks like a tiny Windows 95 on your phone. Tap targets way too small.

shmerl 10y ago
I guess no one provided needed Qt Quick Components?
kbroulik 10y ago
So, you're saying [1] and [2] look like Windows 95? They're built with Qt. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/de/app/auto-motor-und-sport/id366444729 https://itunes.apple.com/de/app/auto-motor-und-sport/id36644... [2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mens-health-fitness-trainer/id542656239 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mens-health-fitness-trainer/...
- zerr 10y ago
  Honestly speaking, I find "Win95" look and controls much more intuitive and easy to use.
  - abrkn 10y ago
    The glorious days before flat ui
    - noir_lord 10y ago
      Flat can be fine with shadows (though if it has shadows is it flat?) and other hints but yes I think the desktop UI in particular reached it's peak with Win2k, everything since has been different but not better. These days I use XFCE with http://www.noobslab.com/2016/03/vivacious-colors-gtk-theme-suite.html http://www.noobslab.com/2016/03/vivacious-colors-gtk-theme-s... and it's nice.
- nardi 10y ago
  Nope, those look much better. I guess just...don't use the widgets.
  - creshal 10y ago
    I'm fairly sure it's the same widgets, just with a better theme overlaid.
    - sho_hn 10y ago
      No, it's Qt Quick vs. QWidget. QWidget was created in the pre-mobile days, and while still very useful to make high-quality work horse desktop apps, the mobile platforms are much better served by Qt Quick in terms of theming, animation and touch support. This fragmentation is frustrating sometimes, but in the end what counts is whether the framework has solutions to your problems, and it usually does. (Meanwhile, Qt Quick is improving on the desktop over time.)
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        This is why on an application I have done back in the 5.3 days, I decided to throw Qt away and rewrite it using standard C++ for the logic, with Java and C++/CX for the UI. I was much more productive and I had much better integration with the respective OS APIs.
zerr 10y ago
That's because it is done with Qt Widgets. "Proper" way for mobile is to use Qt Quick Controls, but you have to deal with QML/js crap unfortunately.
- friendzis 10y ago
  IIRC Qt Widgets are stylable as well. I guess default distribution does not provide styles for iOS, so it defaults to the Win95 look. To me Qt Widgets is the most elegant UI API out there.
- bertit 10y ago
  I enjoy working with QML. There are a few issues, but it is not "crap" at all.
- dkersten 10y ago
  QML isn't crap. Its much nicer, IMHO, than HTML and CSS and much more intuitive. The animation and states system makes it trivial to make polished looking UI's. Granted, I wish I didn't have to use JS with it, but QML itself is fantastic.
  - zerr 10y ago
    Of course, when I say it's crap, I mean compared to C++/Qt Widgets. I wish Quick Controls were available in pure C++.
    - dkersten 10y ago
      You can use them from C++, but its definitely not the expected usage and not particularly easy. I personally much prefer QtQuick to QtWidgets, and really like the QML declarative language as a better HTML/CSS for non-web. But I completely agree with you that I would prefer if I could code all my logic in C++ and not JS. I've been meaning to play around with two ideas: 1. Construct the QtQick widget scenegraph wholly from C++ (and not using QML/JS at all). Doable, but definitely not intended usecase. 2. Construct the scenegraph using QML, but using it only for setting values (and never any logic) and then manually connecting the signals from the QML-created widgets to C++ slots.
ungzd 10y ago
ＡＥＳＴＨＥＴＩＣＳ
akerro 10y ago
It just doesn't have themes. You know, you can apply CSS styles and JS animations for Qt objects?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
therecipe 10y ago
author here; Yes, those look awful. But only because it's build with Qt's C++ widgets (intended for desktop development) and not with the recommended Qt Quick Controls. I will update the screenshots to something that is build with QML.

by nardi 10y ago

shmerl 10y ago

I guess no one provided needed Qt Quick Components?

kbroulik 10y ago

So, you're saying [1] and [2] look like Windows 95? They're built with Qt. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/de/app/auto-motor-und-sport/id366444729 https://itunes.apple.com/de/app/auto-motor-und-sport/id36644... [2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mens-health-fitness-trainer/id542656239 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mens-health-fitness-trainer/...

zerr 10y ago
Honestly speaking, I find "Win95" look and controls much more intuitive and easy to use.
- abrkn 10y ago
  The glorious days before flat ui
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    Flat can be fine with shadows (though if it has shadows is it flat?) and other hints but yes I think the desktop UI in particular reached it's peak with Win2k, everything since has been different but not better. These days I use XFCE with http://www.noobslab.com/2016/03/vivacious-colors-gtk-theme-suite.html http://www.noobslab.com/2016/03/vivacious-colors-gtk-theme-s... and it's nice.
nardi 10y ago
Nope, those look much better. I guess just...don't use the widgets.
- creshal 10y ago
  I'm fairly sure it's the same widgets, just with a better theme overlaid.
  - sho_hn 10y ago
    No, it's Qt Quick vs. QWidget. QWidget was created in the pre-mobile days, and while still very useful to make high-quality work horse desktop apps, the mobile platforms are much better served by Qt Quick in terms of theming, animation and touch support. This fragmentation is frustrating sometimes, but in the end what counts is whether the framework has solutions to your problems, and it usually does. (Meanwhile, Qt Quick is improving on the desktop over time.)
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      This is why on an application I have done back in the 5.3 days, I decided to throw Qt away and rewrite it using standard C++ for the logic, with Java and C++/CX for the UI. I was much more productive and I had much better integration with the respective OS APIs.

zerr 10y ago

That's because it is done with Qt Widgets. "Proper" way for mobile is to use Qt Quick Controls, but you have to deal with QML/js crap unfortunately.

friendzis 10y ago
IIRC Qt Widgets are stylable as well. I guess default distribution does not provide styles for iOS, so it defaults to the Win95 look. To me Qt Widgets is the most elegant UI API out there.
bertit 10y ago
I enjoy working with QML. There are a few issues, but it is not "crap" at all.
dkersten 10y ago
QML isn't crap. Its much nicer, IMHO, than HTML and CSS and much more intuitive. The animation and states system makes it trivial to make polished looking UI's. Granted, I wish I didn't have to use JS with it, but QML itself is fantastic.
- zerr 10y ago
  Of course, when I say it's crap, I mean compared to C++/Qt Widgets. I wish Quick Controls were available in pure C++.
  - dkersten 10y ago
    You can use them from C++, but its definitely not the expected usage and not particularly easy. I personally much prefer QtQuick to QtWidgets, and really like the QML declarative language as a better HTML/CSS for non-web. But I completely agree with you that I would prefer if I could code all my logic in C++ and not JS. I've been meaning to play around with two ideas: 1. Construct the QtQick widget scenegraph wholly from C++ (and not using QML/JS at all). Doable, but definitely not intended usecase. 2. Construct the scenegraph using QML, but using it only for setting values (and never any logic) and then manually connecting the signals from the QML-created widgets to C++ slots.

ungzd 10y ago

ＡＥＳＴＨＥＴＩＣＳ

akerro 10y ago

It just doesn't have themes. You know, you can apply CSS styles and JS animations for Qt objects?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

therecipe 10y ago

author here; Yes, those look awful. But only because it's build with Qt's C++ widgets (intended for desktop development) and not with the recommended Qt Quick Controls. I will update the screenshots to something that is build with QML.