4 ms·

I really want to use Qt for a project but between the absurd commercial cost and them playing games with licensing i'm going with either wxWidgets or Lazarus.

brnt 7y ago
Does anyone here use Copperspice? Saw it mentioned elsewhere as a possible alternative. Theyre a kind of fork of Qt5, ditched the moc, and seem to be ran as a regular Floss project. I have no experience with it, but I do with Qt, which I like very much, so if there are users of Copperspice here I'd be very interested in your experience.
- de_watcher 7y ago
  Copperspice is just a purity zealot project specifically against the moc, it's not a healthy goal. The focus should be on the GUI.
- plorkyeran 7y ago
  Copperspice was interesting as a technical experiment to see if improvements to C++ have made the moc no longer needed. The basic problem with using it to actually write applications is that the development effort on it isn't put into things which make your application better. Modernizing and cleaning up the Qt codebase is great for the people working on Qt (or Cs), but most of the changes aren't actually valuable for users of it.
- bmn__ 7y ago
  A much less invasive solution to the problem: https://github.com/woboq/verdigris https://github.com/woboq/verdigris
mkl 7y ago
If wxWidgets and Lazarus are options, why isn't using Qt under LGPL an option?
- mmargerum 7y ago
  Because QT can always move the goalposts. Like only offering LTS support for licensees. I'm already paying enough cash to another VC Vulture (Embarcadero) for Delphi. I've been looking to move my pascal code over to lazarus
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
Quality wise Qt is way ahead of wxWidgets.
- mmargerum 7y ago
  Ought to be for what it costs. If I go down the wxWidgets path i'll help improve the quality by fixing things.
stagger87 7y ago
You can download and use Qt desktop widgets for free in your commercial application.
- mmargerum 7y ago
  As long as you don't need LTS support. Im done with commercial development tools. I'd rather endure issues with an open source project that I cant help fix/improve.

brnt 7y ago

Does anyone here use Copperspice? Saw it mentioned elsewhere as a possible alternative. Theyre a kind of fork of Qt5, ditched the moc, and seem to be ran as a regular Floss project. I have no experience with it, but I do with Qt, which I like very much, so if there are users of Copperspice here I'd be very interested in your experience.

de_watcher 7y ago
Copperspice is just a purity zealot project specifically against the moc, it's not a healthy goal. The focus should be on the GUI.
plorkyeran 7y ago
Copperspice was interesting as a technical experiment to see if improvements to C++ have made the moc no longer needed. The basic problem with using it to actually write applications is that the development effort on it isn't put into things which make your application better. Modernizing and cleaning up the Qt codebase is great for the people working on Qt (or Cs), but most of the changes aren't actually valuable for users of it.
bmn__ 7y ago
A much less invasive solution to the problem: https://github.com/woboq/verdigris https://github.com/woboq/verdigris

mkl 7y ago

If wxWidgets and Lazarus are options, why isn't using Qt under LGPL an option?

mmargerum 7y ago
Because QT can always move the goalposts. Like only offering LTS support for licensees. I'm already paying enough cash to another VC Vulture (Embarcadero) for Delphi. I've been looking to move my pascal code over to lazarus

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

Quality wise Qt is way ahead of wxWidgets.

mmargerum 7y ago
Ought to be for what it costs. If I go down the wxWidgets path i'll help improve the quality by fixing things.

stagger87 7y ago

You can download and use Qt desktop widgets for free in your commercial application.

mmargerum 7y ago
As long as you don't need LTS support. Im done with commercial development tools. I'd rather endure issues with an open source project that I cant help fix/improve.