Video cards which don't support OpenGL are without a doubt a small minority.
Even if we assume it's a significant minority, have you actually measured the
performance of Qt Widgets versus Qt Quick with no hardware support? In other
words, Qt Widgets is, as far as I know, always rendered in software, so how
would it be faster than Qt Quick rendered in software?
The argument for performance and easiness has been made more than a year ago by
the Qt team itself, as I've pointed out earlier in this thread. I haven't said
even once that it's easy. I've only been saying it's necessary.
On 10.12.18 18:52, Dmitriy Purgin wrote:
> Don't forget that in order to use QCC2 you will need a graphic card with
> OpenGL support or rely on the rather slow software implementation (was it GPL
> only btw?). Qt Widgets don't need a 3D accelerator. There are still use cases
> where you don't have an OpenGL-enabled environment. Making QCC2 looking
> native on Desktop in order to make Desktop applications would -in my opinion-
> just mean that you waste computing power on rendering controls that can be
> rendered easier, with less dependencies and without need to provide
> QML-to-C++ bridges.
>
> Cheers
> Dmitriy
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 4:35 PM Dimitar Dobrev via Interest
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10.12.18 16:43, Vlad Stelmahovsky wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that QtWidgets limited with desktop apps only
>>>
>> An excellent point, Vlad, thank you for reminding me. Yes, this is
>> exactly right - the lack of native styles in Qt Quick Controls 2 would
>> ruin mobile development with Qt as well. Most mobile applications need
>> to look native, in fact, the only major exception are games.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Interest mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
