On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 18:10:37 +0000, J-P Nurmi wrote: > Interesting choice. I would have done the exact opposite. Application > logic in C++ and UI declaration in QML.
Well this is actually not a choice - we did it in QML and ended up with a disappointing performance, because of QML. And we did it exactly like you recommend - we simply have a lot of UI. > Declaring fluid animated UIs in > QML is a joy, writing animations in C++ is not so. In case of the animations QML offers a compact syntax to access a library of C++ classes mostly setting up a QPropertyAnimation. Using similar ( or even the same ) classes from C++ is not uncomfortable either. My experience so far is, that using Qt/Quick from C++ does not have to be that different from writing a widget application: creating controls, setting up signal/slot connections and arranging them into layouts. The graphic stack behind is irrelevant for the vast majority of the application code and I disagree with Thiago, that it is not possible to implement controls with a similar API as their widget counterparts. Uwe _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
