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

But overall Qt rocks :p
Best regards,

Jean-Michaël Celerier

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Sérgio Martins <>

> 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 mailing list

Reply via email to