3 ms·
It is somewhat outdated, but yes, most of the points apply today. Some things changed. Qt is pretty solid today. We use it as native Linux platform. We use nat
by Htsthbjig 12y ago
It is somewhat outdated, but yes, most of the points apply today.
Some things changed. Qt is pretty solid today. We use it as native Linux platform. We use native Windows and Mac front ends too.
Using Qt solves lots of issues very easy, like OpenGL drawing capabilities.
So in Windows and Mac we have two versions of our own software, one with native widgets, one with Qt ones. The Windows version using Qt is much faster and efficient, albeit a little ugly, because of OpenGL issues(instead of official DirectX) and font sizes or colors a little different from Windows and so on.
- hornetblack 12y agoReminded me of Subsurface maintainer's talk on Qt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0A1dsQOV0 He found it was very good for cross platform work.
- joshvm 12y agoThe obvious benefit for me is that Qt provides cross platform GUI creation which is, after all, what it's designed for. Building your own frameworks is great if you have the man power to do it once, but I think there is a strong case for using something like Qt even if it locks you into using its data types. If you're just writing a utility of some sort then sure, you probably don't need the kind of overhead that Qt dumps on you. That said, I've written very performant code using Qt's threading and concurrency libraries and it t was surprisingly easy. Think industrial image processing that needs to be done at 150Hz on two camera streams simultaneously.