Thiago is right. Qt’s biggest problem is the barrier of entry. User facing tools must work as documented.
> Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> kirjoitti 16.2.2021 kello 1.15: > > On Monday, 15 February 2021 01:18:16 PST Joerg Bornemann wrote: >>> To be clear: >>> 1) the binaries from Qt company must also perform this step >> >> Why? The installer doesn't place binaries into some shared system directory. > > Ok, so long as #2 is done. > >>> 2) the documentation has to be updated to include the "6" at the end too >> >> I disagree. > > This is required. We must teach people to use a set of command-lines that > works everywhere. Therefore, the documentation and tutorials about > user-public > tools should advise them on the commands that work everywhere. > >> Qt's target audience can be split in two groups. >> >> 1. Experienced developers. And I don't even mean Qt-related experience. >> They're able to figure out to press TAB twice in the shell after typing >> just "designer<CR>" didn't have the desired effect. >> It's likely, they've been exposed to python before, you know. > > Agreed. > >> 2. Inexperienced developers. They open their desktop search tool of >> choice and type in "designer", get (perhaps several) hit(s) and choose >> the right one. They don't even see the oh-so-confusing binary name. > > Fair enough too, though that one is actually more difficult. Just look at > what > happens when I search for "Proxy" in the attached image. Granted, if I search > for "designer" I get an option saying "Qt 5 Designer" so at least our > solutions are in the right direction: use the major version number in our > descriptions. > >> Maybe you could elaborate why you deem this so important or point to >> some place in the documentation where we can see the danger of user >> confusion. Until then, my position is that we're arguing about a non-issue. > > See above. > > I don't care about the tools that aren't meant to be user-visible, because > most users won't care about them. Those who do will know how to find them > anyway. > > I'm only worried about qmake6, qml6, qtdiag6 and the others that are meant to > be user-facing. I can even excuse qml6 and some of the other tools, but I > insist on qmake6 and qtdiag6. Documentation must mention the "6". > > If you want to document "try qmake6 and if that doesn't work try qmake", I'm > fine. I think that's a mistake, but I'm fine with it. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering > <Screenshot_20210215_094757.png> > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
