Hi Till, good to know there are others who are skeptical about QML. But the QWidget time is over at Nokia. Someone else has to care about.
I assume at Nokia the briefing is "we will not waste any time or money for QWidget like stuff, someone else should do". But we are accustomed to rely on Trolltech/Nokia for Qt development. But this will change with the new development model. And hey, maybe in QtWidget not only crashes will be fixed, when a active maintainer could be found. Peter >> >> You're getting it. Just remember that the bugfixes won't be to little >> glitches >> on Mac. More likely, they will be for crashes or really ugly issues. > > Well that's too bad then that QWidgets won't be fixed anymore! At > least not from Nokia, as it seems. > >> Unless someone wants to take over maintainership and drive again development. > > That's my hope anyway. > >> Remember that whoever wants to do this will have to keep the stability, so >> maintainership can be revoked if too many regressions are introduced and not >> fixed. In essence: we don't recommend doing this. > > Well, that's true for pretty much every development, also new one. So > no reason to scare away people in fixing stuff. > >>> I am talking about that they are now placed on TOP of the "QML stack", >> >> That's a mistaken assumption. They are not. > > Your word in my ears! > >>> And don't be mad, I highly appreciate the work being done, but still I >>> think this whole "QML desktop research" is a waste of time! There is >>> nothing to gain except what we have already now! And I am HAPPY what >>> we have now! >> >> That's really offensive to the people doing it. > > I apologize. My frustration about loosing a GREAT Qt API was just > letting go I assume. > > Again, I am not saying to drop QML! As long as it lives in PARALLEL to > QWidgets and I don't ever have to use it (unless I want to), then I am > PERFECTLY fine! > > But re-inventing the wheel when trying to do desktop development with > QML (not QML itself!), so to speak, to come up with something we > already have, but just with more bads than goods (OpenGL dependency, > interpreted language under the hood, clumsy data exchange with > JavaScript, ...)., that is a waste of precious resources! > > I mean you already hinted above that once you get on the scene graph > train there's hardly any way around dealing with JavaScript. And that > alone is a HUGE drawback for me! > > But let's see, maybe I am wrong. > >>> Don't tell me that in the future it will be so much >>> easier to animate my buttons, have rounded corners, glossy shiny >>> effects... if the window manager doesn't render that, I don't WANT >>> that! >> >> Oh, but you're forgetting that the UIs of the future will be like that >> because >> customers are demanding it and others are driving it! So you want to keep >> your >> UIs as they are... Let's say you had kept them as they were 14 years ago. >> >> Here's what it looked like: >> http://www.linux-kongress.org/1997/kde_desktop.gif >> >> So let me summarise: we cannot stop innovating. > > No we can't. But also remember that the trend in UI is now in the > OTHER direction again, towards SIMPLER and MINIMALISTIC ways of > drawing stuff, see Mac OS X! The time of "Hey, KDE can draw wobbly > wobbly dialogs (but requires OpenGL support to do so)" is long time > over! > > And Qt just performs fine (with QWidgets!) on todays hardware, so why worry? > >> ... >> You've got it. But it will stay as it is. Look at that link above again. Now >> place yourself in your 2016 shoes and look at your UIs of today. > > There will be more "individually looking apps" and I will still want > to kick those people's butt for making apps which look different than > my Windows or Mac or KDE? > >>> Thanks for those who actually read until here, and apologise again to >>> those who skipped reading long time ago. ;) >>> >> Unfortunately, you lost time writing all of that based on mistaken >> assumptions. If you had just taken the time to clarify first... > > No, my point still stands: as long as I can code with Qt 5 without > touching any JavaScript/QML if I don't want to, I am perfectly happy! > I had reasons to believe that I would not be able to do so, but you > said otherwise. I have to take your word for that. > > But I gave valid reasons why I don't want to use QML and fancy UI > design for desktop applications, both as a developer and a user! I > gave a concrete example - the Adobe Flex one - and maybe placed it a > bit too pointy, but bottom line is the performance there sucked big > time(1) and the user experience, well: "it just didn't fit into my > Mac!" Luckily it was a "one time usage" only... > > > (1) I am not saying that I am comparing Flex vs QML, but it is the > same paradigm and the same "misuse" potential is there. > > > Have a nice week-end all! > > Cheers, Oliver > _______________________________________________ > Qt5-feedback mailing list > Qt5-feedback@qt.nokia.com > http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback > _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list Qt5-feedback@qt.nokia.com http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
