> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 at 3:26 PM > From: "Lorn Potter" <[email protected]> > To: "Jason H" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Development] Future of Qt on Web? > > > > On 06/06/2017 12:20 AM, Jason H wrote: > > > > > >> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 at 12:34 AM > >> From: "Lorn Potter" <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [Development] Future of Qt on Web? > >> > >> > >> > >> On 06/05/2017 07:00 AM, Jason H wrote: > >>> While Qt is not a web framework, over time there have been efforts to use > >>> it on the web (outlined below). > >>> > >>> Given that Chrome is dropping NaCL > >>> (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/chrome-deprecates-pnacl-embraces-webassembly,34583.html) > >>> and the WebGL streaming is also not ideal (but better?), I am wondering > >>> about the future of Qt on Web? Will there be a WebAssembly version of Qt? > >> > >> We have been working on Qt5 for webassembly. > >> I was just writing a short blog about this: > >> > >> http://qtandeverything.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/qt-for-web-assembly.html > > > > That is great news! You mention the wasm is smaller? How much smaller? > > For one small example app (standarddialog) the difference between asmjs > and wasm is: > > wasm: 520 k js file and 14 MB wasm file. > asmjs: 69 MB js file.
That's encouraging. It's almost reasonable. Maybe a progressive web app would be the way to go? But I don't think that is using the browser in the best way? You're effectively telling it how to redraw everything, rather than letting it do what it already knows how to do. Is that a fair statement? _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
