> Thanks Tim, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. I *highly* > recommend the Wt toolkit (https://www.webtoolkit.eu/widgets) , even > if it's not LGPL. The Widget gallery is implemented in Wt, and you > can see they have everything, and even a working TreeView! Your > QWidget experience will transfer directly, but you'll have to get > used to using Boost. And it's fast. I "feels" faster than any other > website.
I looked into Wt briefly a few months ago, but for my kind of work, Qml is a much better fit than widgets, hence qmlweb would be ideal if it were integrated into Qt. In fact I'd go as far as saying that not having a qmlweb type of solution has been the primary reason I haven't been able to use Qt in at least 3 commercial products, so anecdotally it is a direct cause of revenue loss for TQtC. > And at the end of the day, whenever I use a web technology I'm > grumbling because I'm not using Qt. Qt is a far superior solution. > But if it doesn't open itself to a wider audience it'll continue to > be obscure (But still used by major companies). But my point is when > I say "Qt" people ask what's that? Or they ask "you mean que tee"? > (indicating a branding problem) I agree with this also. For what it's worth, developer surveys tend to include all sorts of flavour-of-the-week web/mobile toolkits in their lists, and they never have Qt. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
