4 ms·

Agreed that a C++ API for qml would be great. qml by itself is great though, I don't see why it is unweildy. If anything it's unpolished, there is stuff that is

Agreed that a C++ API for qml would be great. qml by itself is great though, I don't see why it is unweildy. If anything it's unpolished, there is stuff that is more difficult than it should be, but it's miles ahead of what there was before imo.

righthand 2y ago
It is unwieldily because it abstracts logic into a different language and paradigm. You need double the cognitive understanding of qt now to know how it operates.
- rubymamis 2y ago
  As someone with 10,000+ lines of C++ code and 10,000+ lines of QML code in his app[1] I can say this is false. It's actually much easier and straightforward to decouple the UI (QML) and logic (C++). It also makes such a great combo - QML is amazing to write UIs in and C++ is a fast, battle tested compiled language. I wrote a little bit about my app development if you're curious[2]. [1] https://get-notes.com https://get-notes.com [2] https://rubymamistvalove.com/block-editor https://rubymamistvalove.com/block-editor
  - righthand 2y ago
    By the same metric c++ qwidgets is amazing to write UIs and by keeping everything in c++ there is easily less abstraction, I can easily navigate my code, not jump between two different systems. There really is no great reason why qml objects couldn’t be c++ classes/functions. Decoupling does what for me, but introduce more syntax, documentation, and learning curves. You should give writing a Kde6 Kirigami app a try and experience the absolute pleasure of adding another abstraction layer onto qml, c++ to muck things up. Qml is the cooler brother of Uic, but at least uic was optional.
    - rubymamis 2y ago
      I'm very fond of QML's syntax, so can't quite understand why you don't like it. It has a learning curve, but I studied all the basics in a day (it's just so simple and intuitive, imo). Not sure how "QML in C++" would look like, but it doesn't sound pretty. Recently someone published a declarative UI inside C++[1] (without a different syntax) but I felt a bit off with this approach. Maybe that's something you mean? [1] https://github.com/brisklib/brisk https://github.com/brisklib/brisk [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42450963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42450963
      - righthand 2y ago
        I don’t know how else to explain it that compared to qwidgets where everything can be handled in code. Qml might be all the things it claims , elegance, separation of concerns, simple syntax, etc, but that still doesn’t eclipse my initial issue that it’s an unnecessary abstraction. You might not think it’s pretty but I think it’s pretty to only use c++.

righthand 2y ago

It is unwieldily because it abstracts logic into a different language and paradigm. You need double the cognitive understanding of qt now to know how it operates.

rubymamis 2y ago
As someone with 10,000+ lines of C++ code and 10,000+ lines of QML code in his app[1] I can say this is false. It's actually much easier and straightforward to decouple the UI (QML) and logic (C++). It also makes such a great combo - QML is amazing to write UIs in and C++ is a fast, battle tested compiled language. I wrote a little bit about my app development if you're curious[2]. [1] https://get-notes.com https://get-notes.com [2] https://rubymamistvalove.com/block-editor https://rubymamistvalove.com/block-editor
- righthand 2y ago
  By the same metric c++ qwidgets is amazing to write UIs and by keeping everything in c++ there is easily less abstraction, I can easily navigate my code, not jump between two different systems. There really is no great reason why qml objects couldn’t be c++ classes/functions. Decoupling does what for me, but introduce more syntax, documentation, and learning curves. You should give writing a Kde6 Kirigami app a try and experience the absolute pleasure of adding another abstraction layer onto qml, c++ to muck things up. Qml is the cooler brother of Uic, but at least uic was optional.
  - rubymamis 2y ago
    I'm very fond of QML's syntax, so can't quite understand why you don't like it. It has a learning curve, but I studied all the basics in a day (it's just so simple and intuitive, imo). Not sure how "QML in C++" would look like, but it doesn't sound pretty. Recently someone published a declarative UI inside C++[1] (without a different syntax) but I felt a bit off with this approach. Maybe that's something you mean? [1] https://github.com/brisklib/brisk https://github.com/brisklib/brisk [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42450963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42450963
    - righthand 2y ago
      I don’t know how else to explain it that compared to qwidgets where everything can be handled in code. Qml might be all the things it claims , elegance, separation of concerns, simple syntax, etc, but that still doesn’t eclipse my initial issue that it’s an unnecessary abstraction. You might not think it’s pretty but I think it’s pretty to only use c++.