4 ms·

Rant ahead. I hate QtQuick controls with a passion. They don't generally feel better than Electron widgets. I say that as a linux user, which also happens to be

Rant ahead. I hate QtQuick controls with a passion. They don't generally feel better than Electron widgets. I say that as a linux user, which also happens to be a dev with tons of Qt experience, which understands the appeal of QML, but simply can't digest the user experience. Most of the UIs designed with Quick (I'm thinking about some matrix clients I was playing with, but not exclusively) are also designed in a way which is totally orthogonal to what I would expect a desktop UI to be. I've seen some of my favorite programs being ruined in the transition from QtWidgets to QML. One part being the horrid controls, the second being the "new way" of UI design QML easily adapts itself to. I'm saddened by this. I was hoping Qt to be the escape path from the mess that Gtk was going to, but QML is worse.

ubercow13 6y ago
Yes it’s unpleasant. Interestingly the Telegram desktop client kind of looks like a QtQuick app in its design and UX, but afaik is implemented only using Qt widgets, and it actually feels much nicer than equivalent real QtQuick apps such as the similar Matrix clients.
pjfin123 6y ago
What's the performance cost of using QTQuick? Does it require bundling a JavaScript interpreter with the application?
- LeSaucy 6y ago
  You link against QtQuick to get the qml/js environment to run your qml apps. There is some performance overhead vs straight c++ code, but its negligible even on embedded systems.
- jdu9 6y ago
  Starting with Qt 6.0, it should be possible to make QJSEngine/v4 (their custom JIT JavaScript engine) optional in your application: >Make JavaScript an optional feature of QML. >Having a full JavaScript engine when using QML can complicate things and is an overhead especially when targeting low-end hardware such as microcontrollers. It is however extremely useful in many use cases. Source: https://www.qt.io/blog/2019/08/07/technical-vision-qt-6 https://www.qt.io/blog/2019/08/07/technical-vision-qt-6
  - joezydeco 6y ago
    is an overhead especially when targeting low-end hardware such as microcontrollers What a sweet way of saying "yeah, it didn't work at all on microcontrollers"
    - black_puppydog 6y ago
      what a diplomatic way of saying "yeah we would rather you didn't bloat your app for no good reason." ;)
solarkraft 6y ago
To me this is another example of great technology used badly. Most Qt Quick demos are abhorrently ugly (see this blog post) and the defaults for Qt Quick widgets are quite obnoxious. This makes many scroll areas especially feel incredibly wonky and unpleasant.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  Qt Quick has historically been a toolkit for building custom look'n'feels, so essentially every Quick project needs a UI designer. For projects where custom LAF is important (e.g. all those car infotainment systems), this is not a problem and expected/accounted for. But for "general purpose" desktop apps - well...
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    Which is sad because Qt Widgets allows amazing native feeling apps and Qt Quick is supposed to be the future ...

ubercow13 6y ago

Yes it’s unpleasant. Interestingly the Telegram desktop client kind of looks like a QtQuick app in its design and UX, but afaik is implemented only using Qt widgets, and it actually feels much nicer than equivalent real QtQuick apps such as the similar Matrix clients.

pjfin123 6y ago

What's the performance cost of using QTQuick? Does it require bundling a JavaScript interpreter with the application?

LeSaucy 6y ago
You link against QtQuick to get the qml/js environment to run your qml apps. There is some performance overhead vs straight c++ code, but its negligible even on embedded systems.
jdu9 6y ago
Starting with Qt 6.0, it should be possible to make QJSEngine/v4 (their custom JIT JavaScript engine) optional in your application: >Make JavaScript an optional feature of QML. >Having a full JavaScript engine when using QML can complicate things and is an overhead especially when targeting low-end hardware such as microcontrollers. It is however extremely useful in many use cases. Source: https://www.qt.io/blog/2019/08/07/technical-vision-qt-6 https://www.qt.io/blog/2019/08/07/technical-vision-qt-6
- joezydeco 6y ago
  is an overhead especially when targeting low-end hardware such as microcontrollers What a sweet way of saying "yeah, it didn't work at all on microcontrollers"
  - black_puppydog 6y ago
    what a diplomatic way of saying "yeah we would rather you didn't bloat your app for no good reason." ;)

solarkraft 6y ago

To me this is another example of great technology used badly. Most Qt Quick demos are abhorrently ugly (see this blog post) and the defaults for Qt Quick widgets are quite obnoxious. This makes many scroll areas especially feel incredibly wonky and unpleasant.

formerly_proven 6y ago
Qt Quick has historically been a toolkit for building custom look'n'feels, so essentially every Quick project needs a UI designer. For projects where custom LAF is important (e.g. all those car infotainment systems), this is not a problem and expected/accounted for. But for "general purpose" desktop apps - well...
- solarkraft 6y ago
  Which is sad because Qt Widgets allows amazing native feeling apps and Qt Quick is supposed to be the future ...