On Wednesday, 21 de September de 2011 13.50.21, Uwe Rathmann wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:21:32 +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > I understand that sentiment. What I was saying is that I want to bring > > that ease of making applications to the desktop too. Not because I think > > mobile UIs are better (or worse, they are just different), but because > > I've seen how productive people are with QML. > > I can imagine that this is true for smaller applications with common > requirements - but probably not for applications that are developed in > months or years.
How do you know this? Have you tried developing a QML application for years
and failed?
> For the second type of applications it is not that important how to
> configure widgets/components, organize them in layouts and set up some
> signal/slots. It takes much more time to do things against the toolkit -
> something Qt was always pretty good because of its many hooks, where
> application code can interfere.
>
> Don't know how good QML components will be in this category, but for my
> productivity this counts more than how many lines I need for writing
> trivial stuff.
I didn't get what you meant. You said that for the second type of applications
(those that take years to develop) configuring the components and organising
them in layouts is not that important. You said that it takes more time to "do
things against the toolkit".
First, that's extremely vague. I can simply answer that with QML it's easier
to "do things against the toolkit", so it should take less time than it has
taken previously.
Second, you're comparing importance to what takes time. They're orthogonal.
What is important is important anyway, regardless of how long it takes to make
them. If QML can make the important things easier to do and take less time, we
should have more productivity, more time to do other things, like polish up
the application, debug, optimise, etc.
If you meant that tasks other than the UI are more important, you'll get mixed
replies. Some will argue that the UI is what users see and that's what you'll
be judged on, that in this world of iPhone if your app isn't good looking,
you'll lose points. Some others will argue that a beautiful UI is useless if
it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. I'll stay in the middle and say you
have to do both equally well.
With that in mind, if making the UI is easier and more productive, you get to
spend more time in the business logic and perfecting it. The rest of Qt (non-
UI) remains as it is today and will only improve.
So what are you complaining about?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
