5 ms·

The funny thing is that Qt apps used to be derided for bloat (15MB of DLLs! 15MB!) but the rise of Electron has made Qt seem featherweight by comparison.

by jsheard 10y ago

StavrosK 10y ago
Yeah, I remember years ago when I was pondering writing a desktop app in Python and thinking "Python? It would be so bloated!", and nowadays nobody gives a shit about being able to load more than four programs at once.
r1ch 10y ago
I've been involved in a project that went from standard Win32 controls to Qt, and while I was very much against Qt at the time (such bloat!), I can't deny how easy it has made cross platform UI work. With many apps being written in HTML/JS, a C++ Qt framework is still magnitudes faster than a JS interpreter.
- owlmirror 10y ago
  I have zero experience with Qt but have heard that it has problems with High DPI presentations. Now It seems that they did something in that regard in Qt 5.6, but do you have anything to say or an idea about the maturity of it?
  - floatboth 10y ago
    Qt classic (C++) apps run flawlessly on my 4K desktop (150% scale in Windows). QML/QtQuick apps only support integer scaling for whatever ridiculous reason ("fuck your monitor we need to be pixel perfect" or whatever) so they're either tiny or huge.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>15MB of DLLs! 15MB! Life's a little different now than in the old XP days. Disk space and ram aren't as limiting as before and the slow redraw times of qt and other cross-platform libraries have been taken care of by GPU hardware acceleration, faster ram, and faster CPUs. These complaints were valid back then and our opinions didn't change because of things like Electron, as much as our hardware is so much more powerful. I remember dreading running Java desktop apps and now I can barely see the difference between them and native win32 apps. Heck, running an app on a virtualized OS on top of my native OS is often fairly performant nowadays.

The funny thing is that Qt apps used to be derided for bloat (15MB of DLLs! 15MB!) but the rise of Electron has made Qt seem featherweight by comparison.

by jsheard 10y ago

The funny thing is that Qt apps used to be derided for bloat (15MB of DLLs! 15MB!) but the rise of Electron has made Qt seem featherweight by comparison.

StavrosK 10y ago

Yeah, I remember years ago when I was pondering writing a desktop app in Python and thinking "Python? It would be so bloated!", and nowadays nobody gives a shit about being able to load more than four programs at once.

r1ch 10y ago

I've been involved in a project that went from standard Win32 controls to Qt, and while I was very much against Qt at the time (such bloat!), I can't deny how easy it has made cross platform UI work. With many apps being written in HTML/JS, a C++ Qt framework is still magnitudes faster than a JS interpreter.

owlmirror 10y ago
I have zero experience with Qt but have heard that it has problems with High DPI presentations. Now It seems that they did something in that regard in Qt 5.6, but do you have anything to say or an idea about the maturity of it?
- floatboth 10y ago
  Qt classic (C++) apps run flawlessly on my 4K desktop (150% scale in Windows). QML/QtQuick apps only support integer scaling for whatever ridiculous reason ("fuck your monitor we need to be pixel perfect" or whatever) so they're either tiny or huge.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>15MB of DLLs! 15MB! Life's a little different now than in the old XP days. Disk space and ram aren't as limiting as before and the slow redraw times of qt and other cross-platform libraries have been taken care of by GPU hardware acceleration, faster ram, and faster CPUs. These complaints were valid back then and our opinions didn't change because of things like Electron, as much as our hardware is so much more powerful. I remember dreading running Java desktop apps and now I can barely see the difference between them and native win32 apps. Heck, running an app on a virtualized OS on top of my native OS is often fairly performant nowadays.