Some things that bother me : * The (perceived) lack of stability with QtQuick / QML : first there was QtQuick with 4.8, then QtQuick 2.0, maybe QtQuick 3.0 with Qt 6 ? Then Controls 1.0, then Controls 2.0 ... everytime with a somewhat short life-span, which makes it a pain when looking for documentation or help, e.g. on stackoverflow. * Features being QML-only instead of being usable from C++. I like coding in C++ (but I agree it's hard). * Some features not really cross-platform (e.g. in QtMultimedia, QAudioDecoder does not work everywhere, same for the 3D audio classes when there is no OpenAL). * The goddamn 4.8 documentation still popping up prior to any other in google search. * It's goddamn impossible to do any meaningful work with the QML designer, every time in the change logs they state that it's becoming better, I drag two random widgets and the thing crashes. * I agree for the FUD against licenses. But overall there is a lot of FUD against the LGPL, not only Qt (e.g. "you can't statically link against LGPL libs", yes you can). However, while I understand the need for the Qt company to make licensing revenue, I don't think that alienating developers (hiding the "OpenSource" part more and more in the website since the qt-project merger) is the right way to do it. * I don't care a lot about moc, as Olivier Goffart has shown with Verdigris it's either ugly macros or moc. And in CMake it's trivial to use anyway. However, I think that the Qt guys should *really* try to lobby the C++ standard body's reflection working group so that when (if :'( ) there is reflection in C++ 2α, Qt's meta object model can be implemented in terms of it easily. This would make for something *very* powerful. * QString being UTF-16 :'(
Some things that don't bother me at all but seems to bother a lot of people on forums : * They expect Qt to be only a GUI toolkit, not a full-blown application framework. But overall Qt rocks :p Best regards, ------- Jean-Michaël Celerier http://www.jcelerier.name On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Sérgio Martins <iamser...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > It's not unusual for us developers and contributors to lose > perspective of what's important. > After many years spent on very particular implementation details, it > becomes difficult to see outside of the box. > > And because we already know the good aspects I'm asking only about the bad. > No need to discuss or reach an agreement, just go ahead and enumerate > what you don't like. > > > Personally, I don't know (too much time inside the box), but after > googling these came up frequently: > > > - C++ is difficult, Qt lacks quality bindings for mainstream languages > - moc (on build systems that don't automate this step) > - FUD around licensing > > > > Please state your top ones, even if it was already stated by someone > else, so we have an idea about which ones matter more. > > > Regards, > Sérgio Martins > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest