7 ms·
Nokia to developers: no Qt for Windows Phone development
- tomh- 16y agoSo, what will happen? 1) Qt c++ devs will invest in Visual Studio and learn silverlight/XNA or 2) Qt c++ devs simply switch to c++ development for iOS + Android
- JonoW 16y agoI thought neither iOS or Android use C++?
- 0x44 16y agoC++ is one of the languages blessed by Apple in addition to C, Objective-C, and Javascript.
- dawgr 16y agoIf they were going to switch to iOS, can't they just switch to Objective-C too even if they used to work with C++ before?
- abdulla 16y agoThey have very different programming models, think Simula versus Smalltalk. You can use the two-headed beast that is Objective-C++, but there's varying levels of compatibility between the languages (in the 64 bit ABI, they share exceptions, in the 32 bit, they don't) and other various oddities they essentially mean they still remain two separate languages that have been kludged together.
- tomh- 16y agoAndroid now offers the possibility to create entire apps in C++ using the NDK. On iOS you can also use C++.
- JonoW 16y agoI did not know that :) So if you can use C++ on iOS, why the hell are people using the horror that is Objective-C?
- oscardelben 16y agoBecause Objective-C is far from being an horror language, but perhaps your impression (and so mine) is conditioned by your past experience with your languages of choice.
- JonoW 16y agoI'm probably being unfair, I've never actually done any development in Objective-C (I have in C++), so I'm going on how it "looks" from the code I've seen, I just find it very unreadable. But in fairness I haven't tried to get into it, and I'm probably biased toward the C#/Java style syntax...
- spatulon 16y agoYour initial reaction to Obj-C is not at all uncommon amongst developers used to C++/Java/C#. My impression is that most of them quite like it once they get past the novelty.
- orangecat 16y agoAs a counterpoint I've written ObjC code for over 5 years for Mac OS X and iOS, and I'm not a fan. Sure it's better than C++, but that should be in the dictionary under "damning with faint praise". Header files, primitive types, and reliance on raw pointers should have gone out 10 years ago. The kicker was when I switched to Android development last year; when a language makes Java look comparatively elegant and concise, that's not a good sign.
- getsat 16y agoI neglected to give more than a cursory glance at Obj-C back when the iPhone 3G and app store first came out. I hugely regret it now, but I was doing C++ at the time and thought it was the cat's pajamas. If you can think abstractly and use/like languages like Ruby and Lisp (and their reflection/metaprogramming features), I think you'll be surprised by the amount of stuff you can do at runtime in native code. I started doing Obj-C a week ago and am about to submit my first free, 90% custom-drawn control app to Apple for approval. Yes, the syntax is initially unappealing, but you get over it after about a day. On top of that, Xcode + Interface Builder is the best GUI dev environment I've used yet.
- pietrofmaggi 16y ago3) Qt c++ devs will learn Java or Obj-C and targets [iOS|Android], where there're already lot's of customers.
- blub 16y agoAs a Qt dev, neither option is appealing to me right now. Maybe when things calm down... By the way, the consensus in the Qt community is that this is bad news both for Qt and for the entire community.
- justincormack 16y agoI cant imagine anyone switching to Silverlight now, its already dying, as MS have admitted, they only cant kill it before they release HTML5 for WP7 later this year.
- Tuna-Fish 16y agoSilverlight on the web is dead, but MS is pushing it hard as a local app platform, and for business applications. In those segments, it's far from dead.
- arethuza 16y agoI can see Silverlight perhaps finding a niche in internal application development - but that's a pretty big come down from the original goals of the technology (i.e. a Flash killer). So wouldn't that make Silverlight, if not dead, severely wounded?
- trezor 16y agoIt would mean Microsoft has realized that competing for Flash's position is not worth the fight, effort or money as Flash and its position in general (plugin-based web-solutions) is losing grounds every single day. They are not willing to fight a battle which will eventually be lost anyway. They are simply refocusing their efforts to get Silverlight (which is a pretty good piece of engineering IMO) put to use elsewhere. As far as I can see, that is a pretty good strategic decision.
- stcredzero 16y agoSilverlight is competing internally with Windows Azure. (Some potential synergy there as well.)
- JonoW 16y agoWhat has Silverlight got to do with Azure? Don't see the link...
- gokhan 16y agoHow about all the .Net developers out there? I'm one. Although I don't have time right now, from now on Windows on Nokia platform will be the native choice for me when I have time to play with it. It's even better than MS + HTC or something. Being on Nokia has better visibility, especially in the eastern side of the world. For Nokia, some Qt guys making the change + .Net ppl can't be smaller than than the current developer base.
- fungi 16y agonokia is virtually non existent in korea, pulled out of japan, and is getting eaten alive in Indonesia by chinese phones, malaysia is building a wimax/android 4g ecosystem. and iphones are _everywhere_. but nokia is huge, i get your point.
- dchest 16y agoRelated discussion, 111 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1820320 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1820320
- hasenj 16y agoI just hope Qt doesn't die.
- wladimir 16y agoI don't hope so either. Although GTK is starting to look pretty nice with version 3, I've always preferred QT from both a a programming and UI perspective. Nokia seems truely cluesless.. every day, another strategy - Maemo was GTK based - Nokia bought TrollTech - Maemo was said to be ported to QT - Maemo was abandoned for Meego - Now they're giving up Meego, and going to MS... sigh
- stcredzero 16y agoWord to the wise: When you're flailing, that's when self awareness is the hardest. It's also when it's most valuable.
- CrLf 16y agoWell, this shows just how good are these buyouts by big corporations: 1. create great product 2. get people on board 3. success 4. get bought by BigCo 5. ??? 6. get crushed when BigCo focuses on something else
- nika 16y agoSo, this is ok if the payout in 4. is sufficient compensation for the existence and effort you put into the company. If, 4. is a desperation move, and you're hoping bigco is going to help your company reach heights you're unable to reach on your own, then you're rolling the dice. I've had exactly this experience. The founders expected BigCo to take them to new heights, but eventually bigco dismantled the company piece by piece. Literally the economic winds changed slightly, success wasn't immediate and so the BigCo CEO got all excited and went off chasing something new and shiny.
- rodh257 16y agoWhere was the success? If Nokias application development strategies were such a success they would not be doing this.
- CrLf 16y agoThe success was at Trolltech, before they got bought by Nokia.
- drink 16y agoIsn't Qt covered under GPL? Could someone else run with it for their development platform? Or would there be patent problems etc?
- eitland 16y agoI think Nokia even relicensed it under LGPL (http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing). And Qt is made by a Norwegian company, and as far as I know at least the Norwegian patent office doesn't grant software patents. They might have patented it in other countries, though. Makes me happy. Would be sad if a nice (commercial with GPL option) product had ended up as unusable for everything but GPL-ed applications.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- leon_ 16y agoNo native code on WP7 is for me a major downturn. To port my apps to WP7 I'd have to do a complete rewrite - and that's work I won't do for an unproven market/platform.
- djhworld 16y agoWhy didn't they choose Android?
- jokermatt999 16y agoAndroid is growing, but it's hard for carriers to differentiate themselves on top of it. The carrier UIs (other than Sense, perhaps) tend to be dislike versus stock Android, so that makes the only way to stand out on Android seem less attractive.
- linuxhansl 16y agoAssuming you mean "manufacturer" when you write "carrier", I think they can very well differentiate themselves by building the best devices (better screens, better battery life, better reception - well that would be the carriers, lower price, etc, etc).
- rodh257 16y agoSE, Samsung, Motorola, HTC are all heavily invested in Android and are miles ahead of Nokia. They can chose to run an outside lane in that race, or they can lead up Windows Phone 7. All people with WP7 devices are just token efforts, Dell, LG aren't major players like the aforementioned companies are, HTC owe everything they have to Android. Nokia can take WP7 and become the market leader, with Microsoft investing heavily and Nokia providing world class hardware they can provide a point of differentiation as opposed to becoming one of the crowd.
- bostonpete 16y agoAlso, don't forget that Nokia's CEO was the head of Microsoft's business division until last fall. I think that may have been a factor as well.
- potatolicious 16y agoI wouldn't say Samsung, Moto, and HTC are "miles ahead of Nokia". They're running essentially stock Android with crappy tack-ons that nobody cares for (when's the last time any OEM's take on Android has received praise instead of complaint?), being glacially slow with updates... With stock Android as a starting point and, well, a clue, Nokia can easily overtake Samsung, Moto, and HTC. Just by keeping good time with Google's own updates, and developing a customized Android UI that doesn't suck, Nokia can pull ahead. That being said, I think the WP7 choice isn't a bad one. At MS Nokia would be customer #1. At Google Nokia would be just another OEM.
- forgotAgain 16y agoLearning moment: developers can't be wedded to a particular technology. Qt is fantastic but it's not the business. We can't invest ourselves in companies that are floundering and Nokia has been floundering for a number of years. If you find yourself investing your talents in a company that has multiple directional changes you need to consider the likelihood that the company will ever return to good times.
- borism 16y agoso by that logic: - if you develop for Palm WebOS, you're relying on company whose main business is selling printer ink - if you develop for Android, you're relying on company whose main business is selling ads - if you develop for iOS, you're relying on company whose main business is selling audiovisual content and portable players for it then Microsoft IS the only company that you can rely on, since it's primary business is selling software?
- forgotAgain 16y agoif you develop for Palm WebOS, you're relying on company whose main business is selling printer ink. Yes, I would not develop for WebOS at this point. if you develop for Android, you're relying on company whose main business is selling ads Yes but you are helping them to sell ads. if you develop for iOS, you're relying on company whose main business is selling audiovisual content and portable players for it Yes, but you are adding value to their main product. then Microsoft IS the only company that you can rely on, since it's primary business is selling software? I don't think so. In markets where Microsoft does not have a monopoly it has been quite willing to change directions irregardless of its impact on developers. For example Silverlight. In markets where they do have a monopoly well they have a monopoly. You can make money serving that monopoly with consulting but you can't do much with independent products.
- ajdecon 16y agoWell, or there's Blackberry.
- nl 16y agoQt Android port: http://code.google.com/p/android-lighthouse/ http://code.google.com/p/android-lighthouse/
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]