On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:09:17 +0200, "Ville M. Vainio" <vivai...@gmail.com> 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.
All my experience of talking to and working with organisations over the years completely contradicts this. The selection of a language happens much earlier than the selection of a GUI toolkit. A GUI toolkit is (or at least should be) a relatively minor issue. Availability of skills (and documentation, and books and other training material) is the most important as people are the most expensive resource. I have been involved in many evaluations of wxPython vs. PyQt. I have never known of an evaluation of QtRuby vs. PyQt. Phil _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list PyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
