On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:03 PM, BRM <[email protected]> wrote: > One of the biggest attractions to using Qt is the fact that it integrates > natively. So I would say that #2 needs to as well. > > I honestly don't get the whole Java-like mindset that the application needs > to look the same on all platforms. > > For the best usability, the application should integrate natively into every > platform - so it will look different on Mac, WIndows, X11, Wayland, KDE, > GNOME, etc. > But the general usability will remain consistent on all platforms. > That is the strength and draw for Qt.
That's why I think that #1 should exist anyway: it covers the exact use case you mentioned. But from my experience it seems that #1 can only be achieved on desktop platforms, but it's really really hard to achieve it on mobile platforms (tables and phones). This happens because the behavior is so different from one platform to another that is almost impossible to cover all the use cases and still have a good API. Compare iOS, Android and MeeGo for example. Comboboxes don't just look different but also have completely different behavior and some platforms have some widgets that others don't. In order to solve this issue, I think that a good way is for Qt to provide a minimum qml widget set that is good enough for the day-to-day development and this would enable the dev to create a real cross platform application. For desktops, I really think that #1 is the way to go and completely agree with your statement. But I think that #2 is valid use case that we should try to solve as well. Cheers, -- ------------------------------------------------------- Artur Duque de Souza openBossa INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia ------------------------------------------------------- Blog: http://blog.morpheuz.cc PGP: 0xDBEEAAC3 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
