Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[Vlad Stelmahovsky]

@ekke thanks for sharing! still not clear what
>
> *With this in mind, we have leveled out the playing field for small teams
> and growing businesses by providing an extended evaluation period of Qt for
> up to 3 named developers.*

really means?

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:42 AM, ekke  wrote:

> for iOS I found this:
> https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/
> 6463/in-2018-if-i-use-c-qt-5-10-0-to-build-a-closed-source-
> application-requires-ope/6495#6495
> but sounds complicated for me as a mobile business app developer
>
> really sorry that there is no Indie mobile dev license from Qt
>
> I asked and got answer that they have tried this some years ago with no
> success
> Some years ago I moved from BlackBerryOS7 (JavaME) to BlackBerry10
> (Cascades/Qt 4.8)
> This was first time I had to develop in C++ / Qt. BB10 Cascades was great
> UX and performance.
> So I also tried Qt itself, but performance of QQC1 was poor and I stopped.
> Later BB10 died and I tried again to develop mobile apps with Qt. At that
> time just first preview of QQC2 came out and I was impressed by UX and
> performance.
> So I started  to develop mobille Apps using QQC2 and in the meantime my
> apps have native speed.
>
> Also had some sessions at dev conferences where I talked about Qt for
> Mobile.
> Always same feedback from devs: looks great, but the costs ...
>
> so now with QQC2 Qt is a great solution for mobile, but many devs cannot
> use it because of license - very sorry about that
>
> I'm using the startup license - but even the startup license info is
> hidden at Qt's web sites. If you don't know about and search explicitely
> for 'Qt start-up' you won't found https://www1.qt.io/start-up-plan/
>
> Qt really has the potential to become a great player for mobile apps if
> license model would be changed.
>
>
> ekke
>
> Am 29.05.18 um 00:39 schrieb René Hansen:
>
> I can't speak for IOS, but at least on Android, all Qt libraries are
> packed inside the application apk as .so files, so no static linking there.
>
> It seems the "go-to" reply on the list and from Qt in general is, "just
> buy the license". Somewhat shortsighted, but understandable as it is, Qt is
> a business, out to make a profit. However, and as I'm surely not alone in
> thinking, I really don't get this approach towards small-timers. The
> license cost just isn't feasible for a lone couch coder with a pet project,
> who just want to put a $1 proprietary app on the store. Most those kinds of
> apps never make much sales anyway and Qt is quickly excluded from the list
> of candidate frameworks, due to this perceived upfront cost.
>
> The side effect of supporting indie devs and tinkerers are a lot more
> profound though. That is where the ecosystem grows. Bigger ecosystem = more
> growth opportunity for the "business" down the line.
>
> It's a shame that many devs are left with the same impression as yourself,
> and easily jump ship to React Native or similar. Qt could easily be the
> defacto standard for mobile app development. It's just not the narrative
> being supported by the Qt corp. Hence, you won't find any official guide or
> writeup on how to publish a closed source LGPL paid app on the app store.
>
> As far as I can tell though, there's really no reason why you can't
> publish a paid app, which is still compliant.
>
> You need to let people relink against other versions of Qt, but that
> simply entails making object files available on request. If ever one is
> made...
>
>
> /René
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 20:08 Sylvain Pointeau 
> wrote:
>
>> My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL
>> compliant.
>> I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think that it
>> is feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked BTW?)
>> and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but maybe my
>> knowledge is outdated.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Sylvain
>>
>> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 19:37, Jean-Michaël Celerier <
>> jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> > I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I
>>> don’t see the business model in that case for my app.
>>>
>>> in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your business model ?
>>> You don't have to publish your sources, only under the GPL.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Jean-Michaël Celerier
>>> http://www.jcelerier.name
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau <
>>> sylvain.point...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

 On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen  wrote:

> Or...
>
> Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.
>

 I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t
 see the business model in that case for my app.

 ___
 Interest mailing list
 Interest@qt-project.org
 http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest


>
> 

Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[ekke]

for iOS I found this:
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6463/in-2018-if-i-use-c-qt-5-10-0-to-build-a-closed-source-application-requires-ope/6495#6495

but sounds complicated for me as a mobile business app developer

really sorry that there is no Indie mobile dev license from Qt

I asked and got answer that they have tried this some years ago with no
success
Some years ago I moved from BlackBerryOS7 (JavaME) to BlackBerry10
(Cascades/Qt 4.8)
This was first time I had to develop in C++ / Qt. BB10 Cascades was
great UX and performance.
So I also tried Qt itself, but performance of QQC1 was poor and I stopped.
Later BB10 died and I tried again to develop mobile apps with Qt. At
that time just first preview of QQC2 came out and I was impressed by UX
and performance.
So I started  to develop mobille Apps using QQC2 and in the meantime my
apps have native speed.

Also had some sessions at dev conferences where I talked about Qt for
Mobile.
Always same feedback from devs: looks great, but the costs ...

so now with QQC2 Qt is a great solution for mobile, but many devs cannot
use it because of license - very sorry about that

I'm using the startup license - but even the startup license info is
hidden at Qt's web sites. If you don't know about and search explicitely
for 'Qt start-up' you won't found https://www1.qt.io/start-up-plan/

Qt really has the potential to become a great player for mobile apps if
license model would be changed.


ekke

Am 29.05.18 um 00:39 schrieb René Hansen:
> I can't speak for IOS, but at least on Android, all Qt libraries are
> packed inside the application apk as .so files, so no static linking
> there.
>
> It seems the "go-to" reply on the list and from Qt in general is,
> "just buy the license". Somewhat shortsighted, but understandable as
> it is, Qt is a business, out to make a profit. However, and as I'm
> surely not alone in thinking, I really don't get this approach towards
> small-timers. The license cost just isn't feasible for a lone couch
> coder with a pet project, who just want to put a $1 proprietary app on
> the store. Most those kinds of apps never make much sales anyway and
> Qt is quickly excluded from the list of candidate frameworks, due to
> this perceived upfront cost.
>
> The side effect of supporting indie devs and tinkerers are a lot more
> profound though. That is where the ecosystem grows. Bigger ecosystem =
> more growth opportunity for the "business" down the line.
>
> It's a shame that many devs are left with the same impression as
> yourself, and easily jump ship to React Native or similar. Qt could
> easily be the defacto standard for mobile app development. It's just
> not the narrative being supported by the Qt corp. Hence, you won't
> find any official guide or writeup on how to publish a closed source
> LGPL paid app on the app store.
>
> As far as I can tell though, there's really no reason why you can't
> publish a paid app, which is still compliant.
>
> You need to let people relink against other versions of Qt, but that
> simply entails making object files available on request. If ever one
> is made...
>
>
> /René
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 20:08 Sylvain Pointeau
> mailto:sylvain.point...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL
> compliant.
> I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think
> that it is feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked
> BTW?)
> and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but
> maybe my knowledge is outdated.
>
> Best regards,
> Sylvain
>
> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 19:37, Jean-Michaël Celerier
>  > a écrit :
>
> > I thought about it but that does not work for all projects,
> and I don’t see the business model in that case for my app.
>
> in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your
> business model ? You don't have to publish your sources, only
> under the GPL.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Jean-Michaël Celerier
> http://www.jcelerier.name
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau
>  > wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen
> mailto:ren...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Or...
>
> Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.
>
>
> I thought about it but that does not work for all
> projects, and I don’t see the business model in that case
> for my app.
>
> ___
> Interest mailing list
> Interest@qt-project.org 
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
>
> ___
> Interest mailing list
> 

Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[Sze Howe Koh]

On 29 May 2018 at 06:39, René Hansen  wrote:
>
> I can't speak for IOS, but at least on Android, all Qt libraries are packed 
> inside the application apk as .so files, so no static linking there.
>
> It seems the "go-to" reply on the list and from Qt in general is, "just buy 
> the license". Somewhat shortsighted, but understandable as it is, Qt is a 
> business, out to make a profit. However, and as I'm surely not alone in 
> thinking, I really don't get this approach towards small-timers. The license 
> cost just isn't feasible for a lone couch coder with a pet project, who just 
> want to put a $1 proprietary app on the store. Most those kinds of apps never 
> make much sales anyway and Qt is quickly excluded from the list of candidate 
> frameworks, due to this perceived upfront cost.
>
> The side effect of supporting indie devs and tinkerers are a lot more 
> profound though. That is where the ecosystem grows. Bigger ecosystem = more 
> growth opportunity for the "business" down the line.
>
> It's a shame that many devs are left with the same impression as yourself, 
> and easily jump ship to React Native or similar. Qt could easily be the 
> defacto standard for mobile app development. It's just not the narrative 
> being supported by the Qt corp. Hence, you won't find any official guide or 
> writeup on how to publish a closed source LGPL paid app on the app store.
>
> As far as I can tell though, there's really no reason why you can't publish a 
> paid app, which is still compliant.
>
> You need to let people relink against other versions of Qt, but that simply 
> entails making object files available on request. If ever one is made...
>
>
> /René

Dynamic libraries are allowed from iOS 8 onwards:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4733847/can-you-build-dynamic-libraries-for-ios-and-load-them-at-runtime


Regards,
Sze-Howe


> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 20:08 Sylvain Pointeau  
> wrote:
>>
>> My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL compliant.
>> I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think that it is 
>> feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked BTW?)
>> and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but maybe my 
>> knowledge is outdated.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Sylvain
>>
>> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 19:37, Jean-Michaël Celerier 
>>  a écrit :
>>>
>>> > I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t 
>>> > see the business model in that case for my app.
>>>
>>> in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your business model ? 
>>> You don't have to publish your sources, only under the GPL.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Jean-Michaël Celerier
>>> http://www.jcelerier.name
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau 
>>>  wrote:


 On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen  wrote:
>
> Or...
>
> Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.


 I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t 
 see the business model in that case for my app.
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[René Hansen]

I can't speak for IOS, but at least on Android, all Qt libraries are packed
inside the application apk as .so files, so no static linking there.

It seems the "go-to" reply on the list and from Qt in general is, "just buy
the license". Somewhat shortsighted, but understandable as it is, Qt is a
business, out to make a profit. However, and as I'm surely not alone in
thinking, I really don't get this approach towards small-timers. The
license cost just isn't feasible for a lone couch coder with a pet project,
who just want to put a $1 proprietary app on the store. Most those kinds of
apps never make much sales anyway and Qt is quickly excluded from the list
of candidate frameworks, due to this perceived upfront cost.

The side effect of supporting indie devs and tinkerers are a lot more
profound though. That is where the ecosystem grows. Bigger ecosystem = more
growth opportunity for the "business" down the line.

It's a shame that many devs are left with the same impression as yourself,
and easily jump ship to React Native or similar. Qt could easily be the
defacto standard for mobile app development. It's just not the narrative
being supported by the Qt corp. Hence, you won't find any official guide or
writeup on how to publish a closed source LGPL paid app on the app store.

As far as I can tell though, there's really no reason why you can't publish
a paid app, which is still compliant.

You need to let people relink against other versions of Qt, but that simply
entails making object files available on request. If ever one is made...


/René





On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 20:08 Sylvain Pointeau 
wrote:

> My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL
> compliant.
> I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think that it
> is feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked BTW?)
> and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but maybe my
> knowledge is outdated.
>
> Best regards,
> Sylvain
>
> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 19:37, Jean-Michaël Celerier <
> jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> > I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t
>> see the business model in that case for my app.
>>
>> in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your business model ?
>> You don't have to publish your sources, only under the GPL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Jean-Michaël Celerier
>> http://www.jcelerier.name
>>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau <
>> sylvain.point...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen  wrote:
>>>
 Or...

 Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.

>>>
>>> I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t
>>> see the business model in that case for my app.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Interest mailing list
>>> Interest@qt-project.org
>>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>>>
>>>
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[Sylvain Pointeau]

My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL
compliant.
I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think that it is
feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked BTW?)
and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but maybe my
knowledge is outdated.

Best regards,
Sylvain

Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 19:37, Jean-Michaël Celerier <
jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> > I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t
> see the business model in that case for my app.
>
> in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your business model ?
> You don't have to publish your sources, only under the GPL.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Jean-Michaël Celerier
> http://www.jcelerier.name
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau <
> sylvain.point...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen  wrote:
>>
>>> Or...
>>>
>>> Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.
>>>
>>
>> I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t
>> see the business model in that case for my app.
>>
>> ___
>> Interest mailing list
>> Interest@qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>>
>>
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[Jean-Michaël Celerier]

> I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t
see the business model in that case for my app.

in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your business model ?
You don't have to publish your sources, only under the GPL.




---
Jean-Michaël Celerier
http://www.jcelerier.name

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau <
sylvain.point...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen  wrote:
>
>> Or...
>>
>> Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.
>>
>
> I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t
> see the business model in that case for my app.
>
> ___
> Interest mailing list
> Interest@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[Sylvain Pointeau]

On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen  wrote:

> Or...
>
> Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.
>

I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t see
the business model in that case for my app.
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[René Hansen]

Or...

Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.


/René

On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 15:57 ekke  wrote:

> Am 28.05.18 um 11:25 schrieb Christoph Keller:
>
> You are correct, in my opinion the price for Qt is way too high if you
> only need the mobile platforms.
>
> that's right
> there should be a 30$ or so per Dev per month license for mobile platforms
> really don't understand why Qt isn't pushing mobile Apps with a cheap
> Indie Developer License
>
> That's the reason we're thinking about phasing out Qt in the next project.
>
> sorry to hear
> Qt is so GREAT on mobile platforms w QQC2
>
> You'll likely reach the $100k revenue with a 2-man project soon.
>
> yep - with 2 or more devs you'll reach the limits soon
>
> I'm a single developer working from my home office and it works for me
> with StartUp License
> @Sylvain: if you fit into the 100.000$ maximum I recommend to fill out the
> formular and wait for answer from sales. I'm pretty sure you'll get the
> license. I'm using this license with 99 $ / month and know that there are
> some otherd evs out there using this license
>
> Don't forget there's also Google's Flutter in the game which is written in
> dart and renders all by itself like Qt does.
>
> Flutter does a great work and is pushed by Google.
> but: try to develop a x-platform project with Camera, BluetoothLE, ... and
> compare with Qt ;-)
>
> React Native will give you all the joy of dependency management
> (cocoapods, gradle) and 3rdparty libraries available for mobile which will
> be hell to integrate with Qt (think of lottie animations and google maps
> for example). Also they support the nice "hot reload" (flutter also has
> this feature).
>
> Regards,
> Christoph
>
> On 27.05.18 10:13, Sylvain Pointeau wrote:
>
> Hello Ekke, Jason, Jérôme, and all
>
> Thank you so much for sharing your experience and tips.
>
> Did you use the v-play components? how did you succeed to match the native
> look and feel?
>
> My choice is between Qt and React Native.
>
> I would have gone with Qt but the price is the real barrier for me. As I
> don't know the success of the app, it is hard to start (and convince my
> partners) knowing the price to pay per year.
>
> Ekke you mention in your blog about the startup plan but as far as I know,
> this is discontinued, the startup plan now let you use the "trial" version
> until you go to the store.
>
> React Native is fully in javascript, but seems typescript can be used
> (which is much better) (BTW would be great to use typescript in QML).
>
> The benefit of RN is IMO to do json natively, but the negative aspect is
> that it is not as cross plateform as Qt, so the desktop version is likely
> to be (much) more challenging.
>
> I am really puzzled, I think that Qt is better than RN, but the price ...
>
> Am I missing something? is there someone else in the same situation?
>
> ps: I continue to investigate (and to read the blog of Ekke), my choice is
> not done yet.
>
> Best regards,
> Sylvain
>
>
> ___
> Interest mailing 
> listInterest@qt-project.orghttp://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Interest mailing 
> listInterest@qt-project.orghttp://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
> ___
> Interest mailing list
> Interest@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[ekke]

Am 28.05.18 um 11:25 schrieb Christoph Keller:
>
> You are correct, in my opinion the price for Qt is way too high if you
> only need the mobile platforms.
>
that's right
there should be a 30$ or so per Dev per month license for mobile platforms
really don't understand why Qt isn't pushing mobile Apps with a cheap
Indie Developer License
>
> That's the reason we're thinking about phasing out Qt in the next project.
>
sorry to hear
Qt is so GREAT on mobile platforms w QQC2
>
> You'll likely reach the $100k revenue with a 2-man project soon.
>
yep - with 2 or more devs you'll reach the limits soon

I'm a single developer working from my home office and it works for me
with StartUp License
@Sylvain: if you fit into the 100.000$ maximum I recommend to fill out
the formular and wait for answer from sales. I'm pretty sure you'll get
the license. I'm using this license with 99 $ / month and know that
there are some otherd evs out there using this license
>
> Don't forget there's also Google's Flutter in the game which is
> written in dart and renders all by itself like Qt does.
>
Flutter does a great work and is pushed by Google.
but: try to develop a x-platform project with Camera, BluetoothLE, ...
and compare with Qt ;-)
>
> React Native will give you all the joy of dependency management
> (cocoapods, gradle) and 3rdparty libraries available for mobile which
> will be hell to integrate with Qt (think of lottie animations and
> google maps for example). Also they support the nice "hot reload"
> (flutter also has this feature).
>
> Regards,
> Christoph
>
>
> On 27.05.18 10:13, Sylvain Pointeau wrote:
>> Hello Ekke, Jason, Jérôme, and all
>>
>> Thank you so much for sharing your experience and tips.
>>
>> Did you use the v-play components? how did you succeed to match the
>> native look and feel?
>>
>> My choice is between Qt and React Native.
>>
>> I would have gone with Qt but the price is the real barrier for me.
>> As I don't know the success of the app, it is hard to start (and
>> convince my partners) knowing the price to pay per year.
>>
>> Ekke you mention in your blog about the startup plan but as far as I
>> know, this is discontinued, the startup plan now let you use the
>> "trial" version until you go to the store. 
>>
>> React Native is fully in javascript, but seems typescript can be used
>> (which is much better) (BTW would be great to use typescript in QML). 
>>
>> The benefit of RN is IMO to do json natively, but the negative aspect
>> is that it is not as cross plateform as Qt, so the desktop version is
>> likely to be (much) more challenging.
>>
>> I am really puzzled, I think that Qt is better than RN, but the price ...
>>
>> Am I missing something? is there someone else in the same situation?
>>
>> ps: I continue to investigate (and to read the blog of Ekke), my
>> choice is not done yet.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>> Sylvain
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Interest mailing list
>> Interest@qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
>
> ___
> Interest mailing list
> Interest@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[Christoph Keller]

You are correct, in my opinion the price for Qt is way too high if you 
only need the mobile platforms. That's the reason we're thinking about 
phasing out Qt in the next project. You'll likely reach the $100k 
revenue with a 2-man project soon.


Don't forget there's also Google's Flutter in the game which is written 
in dart and renders all by itself like Qt does.


React Native will give you all the joy of dependency management 
(cocoapods, gradle) and 3rdparty libraries available for mobile which 
will be hell to integrate with Qt (think of lottie animations and google 
maps for example). Also they support the nice "hot reload" (flutter also 
has this feature).


Regards,
Christoph


On 27.05.18 10:13, Sylvain Pointeau wrote:

Hello Ekke, Jason, Jérôme, and all

Thank you so much for sharing your experience and tips.

Did you use the v-play components? how did you succeed to match the 
native look and feel?


My choice is between Qt and React Native.

I would have gone with Qt but the price is the real barrier for me. As 
I don't know the success of the app, it is hard to start (and convince 
my partners) knowing the price to pay per year.


Ekke you mention in your blog about the startup plan but as far as I 
know, this is discontinued, the startup plan now let you use the 
"trial" version until you go to the store.


React Native is fully in javascript, but seems typescript can be used 
(which is much better) (BTW would be great to use typescript in QML).


The benefit of RN is IMO to do json natively, but the negative aspect 
is that it is not as cross plateform as Qt, so the desktop version is 
likely to be (much) more challenging.


I am really puzzled, I think that Qt is better than RN, but the price ...

Am I missing something? is there someone else in the same situation?

ps: I continue to investigate (and to read the blog of Ekke), my 
choice is not done yet.

Best regards,
Sylvain


___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest


___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest