3 ms·
I mostly disagree. Like you said, Qt is the best cross-platform native-like GUI toolkit available today. And that is a hard achievement. There are many tradeoff
by rubymamis 3y ago
I mostly disagree. Like you said, Qt is the best cross-platform native-like GUI toolkit available today. And that is a hard achievement. There are many tradeoffs (some you pointed out) but the open source community seems to find a way around those limitations. There are thousands of open source libraries you can plug-in into your Qt app to overcome many of its limitations (although some remain, like how can't we still not easily change caret/cursor color of QTextEdit??).
Unlike you, I like the direction that Qt is taking. I think QML and Qt Quick are great. I just implemented a feature in my note-taking app that turns Markdown text into Kanban board using QML and the experience has been great (https://github.com/nuttyartist/notes/pull/574 https://github.com/nuttyartist/notes/pull/574). I'm planning to continue transition from QWidgets to QML/Qt Quick.
I do worry of the continuous friction with open source development and hate the online installers as well. I can recommend this useful tool https://github.com/miurahr/aqtinstall https://github.com/miurahr/aqtinstall that allows you to easily download prebuilt Qt binaries. I hope they can revert their approach on that.
- jchw 3y agoWell, to be fair, most of what I said wasn't actually regarding the direction of Qt. That said, I am sure Qt Quick/QML has improved since I first used it, but I feel like it's not the "next gen" declarative UI design I personally would've wanted. I actually think there's some Rust UI libraries that are going in a direction I find more interesting. It is what it is, though.