7 ms·

I'm wondering why people don't write cross platform applications with Qt.

chocolatkey 8y ago
I think c++ (and qml to some extent) scares people vs. JavaScript, where you have thousands of libs for every situation to back you up
- shakna 8y ago
  You can write it in Python is you're scared of C++. QML let's you inline JavaScript, or call it from a file. Qt comes with 5, 000 classes for every situation to back you up, before you need to go to the community. I think that a lot of developers are simply scared of it, without just cause. They believe rumours, without ever actually trying to use the thing. They don't evaluate first.
  - gautam1168 8y ago
    pyside and pyqt4 both take away a lot from the power of qt. Not worth it if you ask me.
typon 8y ago
Does Qt have the same features as Flutter? I'm thinking about an excellent IDE, hot reloading, ability to target mobile and desktop etc.
- shakna 8y ago
  * Excellent IDE Yes. It's well-written C++. Any IDE can handle it, but the also have their own which gives you a few more things, like drag'n'drop design. * Hot reloading Depends. Old-school Qt? No. It's more powerful, but can't hot reload. New-school QML? Yes. But you are limited to QtQuick, which is only on-par with Electron's features. * Ability to target mobile and desktop, etc. Yes. Supported targets include: Windows, UWP, Linux, macOS, Andorid, iOS, watchOS, tvOS, QNX, and other embedded platforms.
- glenrivard 8y ago
  When you use Qt with Python it is close. But otherwise Flutter offers a much better developer UX. I am old and used a ton of GUI development tools. Flutter is the real deal. It is such a pleasure to develop.
devwastaken 8y ago
Because qt UI is in all ways worse than what browsers can already do. All qt does for displaying web pages is it embeds chromium, same as electron does. Trying to tie c++ to that is shooting yourself in the foot if you can just use node, which electron does.
- shakna 8y ago
  > All qt does for displaying web pages is it embeds chromium, same as electron does. It doesn't: > WebView is a component for displaying web content which is implemented using native APIs on the platforms where this is available, thus it does not necessarily require including a full web browser stack as part of the application. [0] [0] http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qml-qtwebview-webview.html http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qml-qtwebview-webview.html
  - devwastaken 8y ago
    It does. https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine Webview is unreliable and not used by electron apps for a reason, you cannot control anything about it. You're stuck with whatever native browser the system has. That's alright for basic things, but hardely what you'd sanely deploy tech that relies upon modern js.
    - axaxs 8y ago
      Not sure what's meant by 'native browser.'. My last gui app used qt-webkit and webviews. It's not chromium and very controllable...
      - devwastaken 8y ago
        Native browser meaning the systems browser, like safari, or edge.
anaisbetts 8y ago
Because Qt is bad. Do you think after nearly a quarter of a century that its problem is that it's just like, not well-known enough?
- Sylos 8y ago
  Correlation != causation. And even if that was the reason, your response didn't make anyone any smarter. How is it bad? Which you can't answer, because your only line of reasoning is that it has to be bad, because it's not as popular.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    The UI is bad imitations of native widgets and has been forever. Always in the uncanny valley, except if you're running only KDE. The setup of IDE/building/ etc is harder than it should be. PyQT has mostly been the unloved stepchild, with third rate support. Compile times with C++ are awful. Major breaks between versions (QT4 vs 5 etc).
- jocoda 8y ago
  bad how?
pjmlp 8y ago
Because most Electron apps are JS devs working around browser issues by packaging a single browser with the application. I look forward for the Electron wave to fade away just as MSHTML and XUL waves died before it.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Only there never where any big MSHTML and XUL waves.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    I surely remeber quite a few on the enterprise space and plenty of XUL based installers.
TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
Because, unless you want to build your applications statically (which I've done), it requires a large client runtime installation?
Const-me 8y ago
C++ is harder to use, so developers are more expensive to hire. QT is either GPL which is viral i.e. you have to open source your software under the same license, or quite expensive. Even if you’re working on open source GPL software, free QT edition has less features, esp. on embedded.
- detaro 8y ago
  > QT is either GPL which is viral i.e. you have to open source your software under the same license, it is not.
  - Const-me 8y ago
    Technically, LGPL option allows using in proprietary software. Practically, static linking is often better e.g. makes executable much smaller. And even with dynamic linking, see this note from https://blog.qt.io/blog/2009/11/30/qt-making-the-right-licensing-decision/ https://blog.qt.io/blog/2009/11/30/qt-making-the-right-licen... > If you are shipping an executable, you must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable (i.e. must provide components needed to recompile with a new version of the library) unless such data and utility programs are normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs For developers of proprietary software, flutter’s BSD 3 clause license is way easier to comply.
nuclx 8y ago
Well, you still have a pretty large run-time with Qt. If you want something slim, you can use neither Electron nor Qt.
nodamage 8y ago
Are there any good examples of a cross platform application written in Qt that is available on iOS, Android, Mac, and Windows?

I think c++ (and qml to some extent) scares people vs. JavaScript, where you have thousands of libs for every situation to back you up

shakna 8y ago
You can write it in Python is you're scared of C++. QML let's you inline JavaScript, or call it from a file. Qt comes with 5, 000 classes for every situation to back you up, before you need to go to the community. I think that a lot of developers are simply scared of it, without just cause. They believe rumours, without ever actually trying to use the thing. They don't evaluate first.
- gautam1168 8y ago
  pyside and pyqt4 both take away a lot from the power of qt. Not worth it if you ask me.

typon 8y ago

Does Qt have the same features as Flutter? I'm thinking about an excellent IDE, hot reloading, ability to target mobile and desktop etc.

shakna 8y ago
* Excellent IDE Yes. It's well-written C++. Any IDE can handle it, but the also have their own which gives you a few more things, like drag'n'drop design. * Hot reloading Depends. Old-school Qt? No. It's more powerful, but can't hot reload. New-school QML? Yes. But you are limited to QtQuick, which is only on-par with Electron's features. * Ability to target mobile and desktop, etc. Yes. Supported targets include: Windows, UWP, Linux, macOS, Andorid, iOS, watchOS, tvOS, QNX, and other embedded platforms.
glenrivard 8y ago
When you use Qt with Python it is close. But otherwise Flutter offers a much better developer UX. I am old and used a ton of GUI development tools. Flutter is the real deal. It is such a pleasure to develop.

devwastaken 8y ago

Because qt UI is in all ways worse than what browsers can already do. All qt does for displaying web pages is it embeds chromium, same as electron does. Trying to tie c++ to that is shooting yourself in the foot if you can just use node, which electron does.

shakna 8y ago
> All qt does for displaying web pages is it embeds chromium, same as electron does. It doesn't: > WebView is a component for displaying web content which is implemented using native APIs on the platforms where this is available, thus it does not necessarily require including a full web browser stack as part of the application. [0] [0] http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qml-qtwebview-webview.html http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qml-qtwebview-webview.html
- devwastaken 8y ago
  It does. https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine Webview is unreliable and not used by electron apps for a reason, you cannot control anything about it. You're stuck with whatever native browser the system has. That's alright for basic things, but hardely what you'd sanely deploy tech that relies upon modern js.
  - axaxs 8y ago
    Not sure what's meant by 'native browser.'. My last gui app used qt-webkit and webviews. It's not chromium and very controllable...
    - devwastaken 8y ago
      Native browser meaning the systems browser, like safari, or edge.

anaisbetts 8y ago

Because Qt is bad. Do you think after nearly a quarter of a century that its problem is that it's just like, not well-known enough?

Sylos 8y ago
Correlation != causation. And even if that was the reason, your response didn't make anyone any smarter. How is it bad? Which you can't answer, because your only line of reasoning is that it has to be bad, because it's not as popular.
- coldtea 8y ago
  The UI is bad imitations of native widgets and has been forever. Always in the uncanny valley, except if you're running only KDE. The setup of IDE/building/ etc is harder than it should be. PyQT has mostly been the unloved stepchild, with third rate support. Compile times with C++ are awful. Major breaks between versions (QT4 vs 5 etc).
jocoda 8y ago
bad how?

pjmlp 8y ago

Because most Electron apps are JS devs working around browser issues by packaging a single browser with the application. I look forward for the Electron wave to fade away just as MSHTML and XUL waves died before it.

coldtea 8y ago
Only there never where any big MSHTML and XUL waves.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  I surely remeber quite a few on the enterprise space and plenty of XUL based installers.

TheRealDunkirk 8y ago

Because, unless you want to build your applications statically (which I've done), it requires a large client runtime installation?

Const-me 8y ago

C++ is harder to use, so developers are more expensive to hire. QT is either GPL which is viral i.e. you have to open source your software under the same license, or quite expensive. Even if you’re working on open source GPL software, free QT edition has less features, esp. on embedded.

detaro 8y ago
> QT is either GPL which is viral i.e. you have to open source your software under the same license, it is not.
- Const-me 8y ago
  Technically, LGPL option allows using in proprietary software. Practically, static linking is often better e.g. makes executable much smaller. And even with dynamic linking, see this note from https://blog.qt.io/blog/2009/11/30/qt-making-the-right-licensing-decision/ https://blog.qt.io/blog/2009/11/30/qt-making-the-right-licen... > If you are shipping an executable, you must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable (i.e. must provide components needed to recompile with a new version of the library) unless such data and utility programs are normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs For developers of proprietary software, flutter’s BSD 3 clause license is way easier to comply.

nuclx 8y ago

Well, you still have a pretty large run-time with Qt. If you want something slim, you can use neither Electron nor Qt.

nodamage 8y ago

Are there any good examples of a cross platform application written in Qt that is available on iOS, Android, Mac, and Windows?