On 18/09/14 05:09, Kuba Ober wrote: > One of the reasons I loath to recommend to the management to go back to > paying for Qt licenses is that we’d have been sponsoring what amounts to 2 or > 3 major rebrandings and “revamps”, and it seems like throwing money down the > drain. As a user, I want good code. The website, as far as I’m concerned, can > be text-only. Any money that the owners of Qt spend for anything besides the > code is, to us as the end users,*our* money burned for frivolities.
speak for yourself. I think it looks quite nice. They've done a good job making it look appealing and useful. While text only web site might be ok with you, managers or directors scoping out a dev framework for the first time might be wary about paying for something with a web site from 1980's Quality of code also runs to the web servers. I am a bit wary about dev apps/frameworks/tools whose web site looks like gak. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
