4 ms·
For embedded devices the only good toolkit is Qt and the licensing costs are pretty high. Flutter for embedded is interesting in this regard.
by mindentropy 7y ago
For embedded devices the only good toolkit is Qt and the licensing costs are pretty high. Flutter for embedded is interesting in this regard.
- pjmlp 7y agoGluon, PTC and Aicas also license JavaFX. Qt licensing costs are quite standard to market prices of similar products. Also if one doesn't want to pay for Qt, it is free to do themselves the same they want to do with upstream developers.
- sievebrain 7y agoJavaFX is fully open source, it doesn't need licensing. It also supports hardware acceleration, embedded usage on Linux, animation framework etc. Also, fits well with kotlin.
- pjmlp 7y agoGood luck getting JavaFX working out of the box in the embedded hardware supported by those vendors with the code at the open source repository. Who do you think does the porting and OEM certification work?
- _pmf_ 7y agoPlease link me to an image for RPi or BBB that has working HW accelerated JavaFX. I'm not being sarcastic, I'd actually like to know.
- kristoffer 7y agoYour last sentence is a bit hard to comprehend but not paying for Qt and shipping a commercial embedded product is pretty difficult due to the anti-tivoization clauses of GPL3. I agree with parent poster that flutter is very interesting for Embedded GUI development.
- Nokinside 7y agoQt has LGPL3 license Not GPL3. It's really easy to ship commercial Qt app with LGPL3 (except few modules that are GPL3) You just provide sources or linkable object files. Qt intentionally avoids explaining how to do this because they are selling commercial licenses. If you are in software business and can't figure this out, maybe you should consult someone. (disclosure: I own commercial Qt license and stock in the company)
- kristoffer 7y agoNo need for the tone. That is really easy as you say. What you seem to have overlooked are the implications of doing this. You are forced to help customers replace the Qt libraries in your product. That has quite large security/warranty implications. So ... no thanks! I do contract work for a company licensing Qt5. I'm hoping for Flutter or something else to kill Qt in the long run.
- Nokinside 7y ago> No need for the tone. I think I'm allowed for the tone when you respond with the following: >You are forced to help customers replace the Qt libraries in your product. That has quite large security/warranty implications. The above is completely wrong. You develop and distribute your closed source software and link it with QT libraries like you would do normally. Nothing is needed from the customers. Your closed source software can be statically linked to LGPL binaries (to fix another common misconception). What is needed from you is a way for the customers to get things separately. It can be written offer, link to files in the website (used to be directory in DVD). You can be almost 100% certain that your customers will never use or notice this option. It's just there to comply with the license.
- kristoffer 7y agoYou don't agree that you need to provide a way for your customers to replace the Qt libraries? (because that is a fact of LGPL3, read the anti tivoization clause). Do you see any possible security problems with the above? Because in reality it means that you give your customers the possibility to run their own code on your hardware. That is a problem for many companies and products.
- kdot 7y agoFlutter is very similar to Qt: signals and slots are similar to streams and sinks, and the BLoC pattern is similar to the state machine paradigm in Qt. I've been loving Flutter and Dart, developing with it seems almost too easy.
- pjmlp 7y agoWith the big difference that JavaScript and C++ are CV worthy languages, while Dart is fighting for its survival.