On 2/11/2009 4:09 PM, Ville M. Vainio wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Giovanni Bajo <ra...@develer.com> wrote:
I doubt that any company on earth would save £350 and change programming
language. This kind of decision is made by amateur programmers that just
want to play around with Qt, but those can already use the GPL version.
Not necessarily change, but it may effect the initial selection.
I am not really interested in pursuing this discussion further (it has
been done enough times already), but the licensing of Qt is the reason
people/orgs chose other toolkits over Qt, despite technical
inferiority. And everybody seems to be pretty enthusiastic about the
license change, so it's not something to laugh off, really.
Be it as it may, if ruby had a LGPL Qt and Python didn't, it would be
real technical plus for ruby and minus for python (as opposed to other
benefits claimed by the ruby community, which are typically fictious).
If developing in Python costs you 350pounds / developer and ruby and
c++ are free, many companies would definitely weigh this against
python.
You're basically restating your previous point, without debating mine.
The language choice affects companies much more than £350 / programmer.
If they have Python programmers, you need to teach them Ruby and make
them productive on Ruby, and evaluate if all your other 3rd-party needs
(besided Qt) are covered by Ruby. I think we agree that this is not
going to cost less than £350 / programmer.
If your company has never used neither Python nor Ruby, I don't think
the decision will be taken on the basis of the Qt binding licensing
cost. There are other factors (like, eg., the availability of
consultants on either language, the availability of other libraries, the
easyness of deplying the application to your target, an internal
technical evaluation process of both languages, etc.) which are going to
affect the decision much more than the license cost *and* are going to
cost *themselves* more than £350 / programmer.
I would be surprised if a single company preferred QtRuby over PyQt just
because of the license cost. And I won't be suprised if the QtRuby
people will push this as a marketing argument though -- I just find it
incredibly weak.
--
Giovanni Bajo
Develer S.r.l.
http://www.develer.com
_______________________________________________
PyQt mailing list PyQt@riverbankcomputing.com
http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
