4 ms·

Nice to see that Qt finally gets some competition! The pricing alone is a no-brainer. Now the only thing I'm missing from the demos is smooth scrolling :)

pjmlp 3y ago
Not to diminish Slint authors work, but it is still far from being Qt competition, given the current state of accessibility, IDE integration, or graphical tooling for UI/UX designers.
- madnirua 3y ago
  Disclaimer: I work for Slint Indeed we are actively working on all of those topics: Accessibility support in Slint is improving. We just merged the initial AccessKit integration into our winit backend -- https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/pull/2865 https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/pull/2865 IDE integration - our VSCode extension is pretty stable these days (https://slint.dev/get-started#vscode https://slint.dev/get-started#vscode) and we also support integrating into other IDEs via LSP (https://slint.dev/get-started#other-ide https://slint.dev/get-started#other-ide) Graphical tooling for UI/UX designers - our current prototype https://slintpad.com https://slintpad.com needs more work to become an easy Drag n'Drop editor for UI/UX designers -- but we are on the right path to achieve that :)
- ogoffart 3y ago
  Slint is already a viable alternative to Qt, as evidenced by users actively choosing us over Qt. While Qt is more mature in many areas with its two decades of development and large team, Slint is already good enough for some use cases. And as a young framework, we naturally strive to improve. By the way, when it comes to IDE integration, our VSCode extension and LSP server, which includes live preview, put us on par with Qt's.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Sorry but that isn't the same thing, you're even reckon that is only some use cases, not all of them. Using VSCode is hardly comparable to QtEditor alongside Qt Design Studio. So yeah it might be a viable alternative to those that aren't even aware of what a full installation of Qt brings in the box. While I don't doubt Slint will eventually reach that level, we are comparing 1.0 release with 6.5 and related tooling. By the way, madnirua's answer was more in line with the reality and it was appreciated.
pzo 3y ago
If you target desktop only probably Qt license (LGPL 3.0) is easy to use even in commercial projects. The problems comes if you want to target embedded, mobile platforms especially iOS or require some of their GPL modules (e.g. Charts, Data Visualization) Otherwise Qt is probsbly much more mature project and already has unofficial rust bindings
- Kelteseth 3y ago
  The current main problem is that Qt often releases new modules under GPL and commercial only licenses. For example, the new Qt GRPC implementation and then it is all or nothing. Qt commercial would force us to essentially buy two licenses because we have a second app that acts as a third party dll loading app. These dlls often crash and thus we moved them into a dedicated app we could simply restart, but Qt license would force you two buy two licenses only because they talk to each other. So, no thank you Qt we will stick with LGPL for now, and move to something else in the future. See my blog post "Current Issues With The Qt Project - From The Outside Looking In" [1]. [1] https://kelteseth.com/post/20-04-2023-current-issues-with-the-qt-project-from-the-outside-looking-in/ https://kelteseth.com/post/20-04-2023-current-issues-with-th...
  - ibsonc 3y ago
    I think you have misunderstood the Qt licensing model when you say that you need two Qt licenses if you are building two separate applications? The commercial licenses are a) per developer and b) per distributed device (if you distribute your software as part of a device), there is no per application licensing requirement.
    - Kelteseth 3y ago
      > An application using Qt Commercial must not communicate with any another application using Qt LGPL-3.0 or Qt GPL, if both applications run on the same device. This is more restrictive than GPL. https://embeddeduse.com/2023/01/06/using-qt-5-15-and-qt-6-under-lgplv3/ https://embeddeduse.com/2023/01/06/using-qt-5-15-and-qt-6-un...
madnirua 3y ago
Disclaimer: I work for Slint Thanks. We have a lot of users who are migrating from Qt/QML to Slint. The smooth scrolling part -- is that for the wasm binary or for a native application?
- Kelteseth 3y ago
  Wasm in Firefox.
tensor 3y ago
I can't find it now, but I remember looking at slint a few months back and finding out that native widget support on the desktop required QT. Is this not true?
- madnirua 3y ago
  Qt is only needed if you want native looking widgets. Otherwise, another style will be used for widget, which does not look native. In the future, we plan to have native backend using the native API, which will allow native widgets without using Qt. Reference: https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/blob/master/docs/install_qt.md#do-i-need-qt-to-use-slint https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/blob/master/docs/install_q...

pjmlp 3y ago

Not to diminish Slint authors work, but it is still far from being Qt competition, given the current state of accessibility, IDE integration, or graphical tooling for UI/UX designers.

madnirua 3y ago
Disclaimer: I work for Slint Indeed we are actively working on all of those topics: Accessibility support in Slint is improving. We just merged the initial AccessKit integration into our winit backend -- https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/pull/2865 https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/pull/2865 IDE integration - our VSCode extension is pretty stable these days (https://slint.dev/get-started#vscode https://slint.dev/get-started#vscode) and we also support integrating into other IDEs via LSP (https://slint.dev/get-started#other-ide https://slint.dev/get-started#other-ide) Graphical tooling for UI/UX designers - our current prototype https://slintpad.com https://slintpad.com needs more work to become an easy Drag n'Drop editor for UI/UX designers -- but we are on the right path to achieve that :)
ogoffart 3y ago
Slint is already a viable alternative to Qt, as evidenced by users actively choosing us over Qt. While Qt is more mature in many areas with its two decades of development and large team, Slint is already good enough for some use cases. And as a young framework, we naturally strive to improve. By the way, when it comes to IDE integration, our VSCode extension and LSP server, which includes live preview, put us on par with Qt's.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Sorry but that isn't the same thing, you're even reckon that is only some use cases, not all of them. Using VSCode is hardly comparable to QtEditor alongside Qt Design Studio. So yeah it might be a viable alternative to those that aren't even aware of what a full installation of Qt brings in the box. While I don't doubt Slint will eventually reach that level, we are comparing 1.0 release with 6.5 and related tooling. By the way, madnirua's answer was more in line with the reality and it was appreciated.

pzo 3y ago

If you target desktop only probably Qt license (LGPL 3.0) is easy to use even in commercial projects. The problems comes if you want to target embedded, mobile platforms especially iOS or require some of their GPL modules (e.g. Charts, Data Visualization) Otherwise Qt is probsbly much more mature project and already has unofficial rust bindings

Kelteseth 3y ago
The current main problem is that Qt often releases new modules under GPL and commercial only licenses. For example, the new Qt GRPC implementation and then it is all or nothing. Qt commercial would force us to essentially buy two licenses because we have a second app that acts as a third party dll loading app. These dlls often crash and thus we moved them into a dedicated app we could simply restart, but Qt license would force you two buy two licenses only because they talk to each other. So, no thank you Qt we will stick with LGPL for now, and move to something else in the future. See my blog post "Current Issues With The Qt Project - From The Outside Looking In" [1]. [1] https://kelteseth.com/post/20-04-2023-current-issues-with-the-qt-project-from-the-outside-looking-in/ https://kelteseth.com/post/20-04-2023-current-issues-with-th...
- ibsonc 3y ago
  I think you have misunderstood the Qt licensing model when you say that you need two Qt licenses if you are building two separate applications? The commercial licenses are a) per developer and b) per distributed device (if you distribute your software as part of a device), there is no per application licensing requirement.
  - Kelteseth 3y ago
    > An application using Qt Commercial must not communicate with any another application using Qt LGPL-3.0 or Qt GPL, if both applications run on the same device. This is more restrictive than GPL. https://embeddeduse.com/2023/01/06/using-qt-5-15-and-qt-6-under-lgplv3/ https://embeddeduse.com/2023/01/06/using-qt-5-15-and-qt-6-un...

madnirua 3y ago

Disclaimer: I work for Slint Thanks. We have a lot of users who are migrating from Qt/QML to Slint. The smooth scrolling part -- is that for the wasm binary or for a native application?

Kelteseth 3y ago
Wasm in Firefox.

tensor 3y ago

I can't find it now, but I remember looking at slint a few months back and finding out that native widget support on the desktop required QT. Is this not true?

madnirua 3y ago
Qt is only needed if you want native looking widgets. Otherwise, another style will be used for widget, which does not look native. In the future, we plan to have native backend using the native API, which will allow native widgets without using Qt. Reference: https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/blob/master/docs/install_qt.md#do-i-need-qt-to-use-slint https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/blob/master/docs/install_q...