Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
Le 27/09/2013 20:20, Thiago Macieira a écrit : On sexta-feira, 27 de setembro de 2013 13:44:23, Uwe Rathmann wrote: On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:13:33 -0400, K. Frank wrote: [...] The existence of 2 different systems is a problem of itself. The development is working on the QML side, while the majority of the user base is doing widgets. For me as an author of a 3rd party lib it means I have to deal with 2 different platforms. The opposite of code once ... what used to be the mantra of Qt in the TrollTech days. Because the industry has changed. There's no way the C++ widgets as they have been designed will work on the new platforms. I don't understand here: currently widgets *do work* on at least some of the new platforms, I have some real working apps running on Android phones... In some cases (many for me), widgets are just the easiest way to go, when parts of the display is not static and needs to be created on-the-fly at runtime. Sure some tweakings are needed here and there, because a mobile is not a desktop. But widgets are working fine :-) despite some shortcomings, mostly related to the styles and stylesheets management in my case, which are also valid on the desktop anyway. Regards, -- /- Yves Bailly - Software developer -\ \- Sescoi RD - http://www.sescoi.fr -/ The possible is done. The impossible is being done. For miracles, thanks to allow a little delay. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
On segunda-feira, 30 de setembro de 2013 08:52:37, Yves Bailly wrote: Sure some tweakings are needed here and there, because a mobile is not a desktop. But widgets are working fine despite some shortcomings, mostly related to the styles and stylesheets management in my case, which are also valid on the desktop anyway. You don't use QComboBox or QSpinBox, do you? Do your QPushButtons go unmodified? How well do your QListView/QListWidget work on touch displays? Do they scroll nicely? Did you design your own QStyle? Or are you heavily modifying the UI with stylesheets? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
Well, at least the QComboBox in QML is a big joke (on the desktop). It usese a popup menu which is slow as hell and unscrollable with more than 10 entries. QML has to go a lng way until it works on the Desktop On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote: On segunda-feira, 30 de setembro de 2013 08:52:37, Yves Bailly wrote: Sure some tweakings are needed here and there, because a mobile is not a desktop. But widgets are working fine despite some shortcomings, mostly related to the styles and stylesheets management in my case, which are also valid on the desktop anyway. You don't use QComboBox or QSpinBox, do you? Do your QPushButtons go unmodified? How well do your QListView/QListWidget work on touch displays? Do they scroll nicely? Did you design your own QStyle? Or are you heavily modifying the UI with stylesheets? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center ___ 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] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:20:24AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: Every year in the Qt Developer Days plenary sessions, the audience asked for more bugfixing, fewer new features, and definitely no regressions. We listened. So instead of breaking QtWidgets by refactoring it, we kept it as-is, we're fixing bugs, and we're introducing a new solution, step by step, so we can achieve the code once goal again. Tell me that was wrong. Implementing the features that have been asked for while keeping the stability of the existing stack might indeed have required a second stack, which might very likely have had a different API. However, the scale of additional differences on the frontend side of the presented solution is way beyond what is necessary and not what has been asked for. People did not ask for replacing a well-known standardized language with established development and deployment processes by some ad-hoc domain specific language without similar provisions. People did not ask to shift their compile-time effort onto their user's startup and run times. People did not ask to depend on technologies that are easily, and on some platforms commonly, blocked by downstream distribution channels. Etc. Listening to the audience was not wrong. The presented solution partially is, as it bundles compulsory dependencies which are technically not needed, and often enough counterproductive. Andre' ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
On segunda-feira, 30 de setembro de 2013 15:47:07, André Pönitz wrote: People did not ask for replacing a well-known standardized language with established development and deployment processes by some ad-hoc domain specific language without similar provisions. People did not ask to shift their compile-time effort onto their user's startup and run times. People did not ask to depend on technologies that are easily, and on some platforms commonly, blocked by downstream distribution channels. Etc. I agree none of this was asked for. Listening to the audience was not wrong. The presented solution partially is, as it bundles compulsory dependencies which are technically not needed, and often enough counterproductive. Whether it's technically not needed, I don't have the grounds to answer. Whether in the long run it will be beneficial, it remains to be seen. And many of the issues that were introduced can still be fixed. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:20:24 -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: The Qt development team grew considerably during the Nokia time (which is a good thing of that time too), faster than the commercial business. The insane growth of the Qt development happened before - in the TrollTech days. From the outside it looked like the owner had made the decision to retire and sell the company - a situation, where size is more important than being profitable. Finally Nokia was the one who bought it - otherwise it would have been someone else. IMO the business strategy of Digia today is better for Qt than Nokia was, but Nokia was better than many other options I was afraid of. We could have completely refactored the widgets and tried to make them work on all platforms again. The consequences of that would be: 1) a much-delayed Qt 5.0 2) a source-incompatible set of classes (I have to deal with 2 different platforms) 3) a LOT of behaviour incompatibility, plus 4 years worth of fixing regressions (remember Qt 3 to 4, anyone?) Consider what the majority of the code of a user interface looks like: creating controls organizing them in layouts and setting up signal/slot connections. I don't see why this has to be different because of the scene graph. If you would have released Qt 4.x versions with all other changes and a much delayed Qt 5 ( = 2014 ) with a new graphics system ( offering a migration path better than a complete rewrite in QML ) - what would have been the consequence for today: On the desktop none, as almost everyone sticks to the old system. On smartphones/tablets - not sure, Qt is not available on the relevant platforms yet. I bet there are not too many projects - outside the now dead Nokia ecosystem - where having the scene graph one year earlier really had mattered. And this is where I believe that the ownership of Nokia led into a less optimal situation. Uwe ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
Op 26-9-2013 20:13, K. Frank schreef: Hello List! This whole Elop thing got me thinking about the history of Qt and Nokia. Nothing's perfect, of course, and everything's a mixed bag, but, all in all, do people think Nokia's involvement with Qt ended up helping Qt or not? I started using Qt after Nokia acquired Trolltech (2008? 2009?) and then Nokia divested itself of Qt, if I remember correctly, in 2011, spinning off the commercial licensing to Digia. So I guess Nokia had Qt for three or four years. Did this detour (for lack of a better word) end up being helpful? Thanks. In my opinion, it was. Qt had some great releases in that period. While not everyone liked the focus on mobile (me included), some really great stuff did get developed in the Nokia time frame: Qt Creator and QML just two of them. The DevDays really turned into good events too. Qt got LGPL-ed on all platforms, and I think that was a very big step that I doubt would ever have happened under Trolltech. Also, I understand (3rd hand or so, no personal knowledge) that financially, Qt never did all that great in the TT days. Would the company even have survived? Being under the wings of Nokia allowed Qt to develop further. The FUD that Nokia itself caused in the last two years was bad though. Really bad. So yes, I think the net balance is positive. André ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:13:33 -0400, K. Frank wrote: Did this detour (for lack of a better word) end up being helpful? Nokia was not interested in the desktop and the previous user base. IMHO this had 3 effects: a) LGPL Good and bad: the business case of selling support licenses is dead ( almost all Qt developers are payed ), what is IMO one of the reasons behind the missing resources. b) Symbian Only bad - nobody was interested beside Nokia - and has been removed again with Qt5. c) QML No migration path from C++/Widgets with the result, that almost all existing projects are not interested. With Qt 5.1 QML might have become an option for a desktop application - but to be honest I never heard of one. The existence of 2 different systems is a problem of itself. The development is working on the QML side, while the majority of the user base is doing widgets. For me as an author of a 3rd party lib it means I have to deal with 2 different platforms. The opposite of code once ... what used to be the mantra of Qt in the TrollTech days. Uwe ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
On sexta-feira, 27 de setembro de 2013 13:44:23, Uwe Rathmann wrote: On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:13:33 -0400, K. Frank wrote: Did this detour (for lack of a better word) end up being helpful? Nokia was not interested in the desktop and the previous user base. IMHO this had 3 effects: a) LGPL Good and bad: the business case of selling support licenses is dead ( almost all Qt developers are payed ), what is IMO one of the reasons behind the missing resources. The consulting companies would beg to differ here. I know that Digia, ICS and KDAB are collecting money on support, supporting both the open source and commercial versions of Qt. And Digia is making money on selling commercial licenses. I don't know how the numbers today compare to the time of the GPL, though. The reason why we're missing resources is that there's no cash-daddy pouring money into Qt, like Nokia was. The Qt development team grew considerably during the Nokia time (which is a good thing of that time too), faster than the commercial business. b) Symbian Only bad - nobody was interested beside Nokia - and has been removed again with Qt5. I totally agree. I managed to survive my 3 years inside Nokia without ever a single time attempting a Symbian build or even installing their toolchain. I wasn't alone :-) c) QML No migration path from C++/Widgets with the result, that almost all existing projects are not interested. With Qt 5.1 QML might have become an option for a desktop application - but to be honest I never heard of one. Mind you: Qt 5.1 with the Qt Quick Controls was released 3 months ago. The existence of 2 different systems is a problem of itself. The development is working on the QML side, while the majority of the user base is doing widgets. For me as an author of a 3rd party lib it means I have to deal with 2 different platforms. The opposite of code once ... what used to be the mantra of Qt in the TrollTech days. Because the industry has changed. There's no way the C++ widgets as they have been designed will work on the new platforms. We could have completely refactored the widgets and tried to make them work on all platforms again. The consequences of that would be: 1) a much-delayed Qt 5.0 2) a source-incompatible set of classes (I have to deal with 2 different platforms) 3) a LOT of behaviour incompatibility, plus 4 years worth of fixing regressions (remember Qt 3 to 4, anyone?) And to top it all off, there's no guarantee we could have managed that. Every year in the Qt Developer Days plenary sessions, the audience asked for more bugfixing, fewer new features, and definitely no regressions. We listened. So instead of breaking QtWidgets by refactoring it, we kept it as-is, we're fixing bugs, and we're introducing a new solution, step by step, so we can achieve the code once goal again. Tell me that was wrong. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
[Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
Hello List! This whole Elop thing got me thinking about the history of Qt and Nokia. Nothing's perfect, of course, and everything's a mixed bag, but, all in all, do people think Nokia's involvement with Qt ended up helping Qt or not? I started using Qt after Nokia acquired Trolltech (2008? 2009?) and then Nokia divested itself of Qt, if I remember correctly, in 2011, spinning off the commercial licensing to Digia. So I guess Nokia had Qt for three or four years. Did this detour (for lack of a better word) end up being helpful? Thanks. K. Frank ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
Frank, et al.: My *OPINION* is that Nokia sucked a lot of the energy out of Qt as they tried to bend it into being a mobile platform. In the process, the desktop (and my own area of interest, the embedded world) was greatly forgotten. The only thing that saved Qt from being sucked into the black hole of Nokia's demise was the fact that Nokia finally disgorged Qt to Digia; otherwise Qt would have burned down with the rest of the oil platform, torched by Elop. Atlant -Original Message- From: interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org [mailto:interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of K. Frank Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:14 PM To: Qt-interest Subject: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt? Hello List! This whole Elop thing got me thinking about the history of Qt and Nokia. Nothing's perfect, of course, and everything's a mixed bag, but, all in all, do people think Nokia's involvement with Qt ended up helping Qt or not? I started using Qt after Nokia acquired Trolltech (2008? 2009?) and then Nokia divested itself of Qt, if I remember correctly, in 2011, spinning off the commercial licensing to Digia. So I guess Nokia had Qt for three or four years. Did this detour (for lack of a better word) end up being helpful? Thanks. K. Frank ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/txHDrcanmFjGX2PQPOmvUvzSKb3+TPPm!QRWNw0plO!xcwPgo+dnhlp7j3JRijX9B08qPzQHNPLCXaTERp6oIw== to report this email as spam. This e-mail and the information, including any attachments, it contains are intended to be a confidential communication only to the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
In Nokia-period, Qt gained (cot complet list) : * LGPL licence * creating Qt Quick for best mobile support * creating LightHouse (which become QPA) for best portability In final, I like actual Qt. I like Qt notorious, open gouvernance, mobile portability, future of Qt, etc. What care about Nokia ? It's past Guillaume - Mail original - De: Atlant Schmidt aschm...@dekaresearch.com À: K. Frank kfrank2...@gmail.com, Qt-interest interest@qt-project.org Envoyé: Jeudi 26 Septembre 2013 20:21:47 Objet: Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt? Frank, et al.: My *OPINION* is that Nokia sucked a lot of the energy out of Qt as they tried to bend it into being a mobile platform. In the process, the desktop (and my own area of interest, the embedded world) was greatly forgotten. The only thing that saved Qt from being sucked into the black hole of Nokia's demise was the fact that Nokia finally disgorged Qt to Digia; otherwise Qt would have burned down with the rest of the oil platform, torched by Elop. Atlant -Original Message- From: interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org [mailto:interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of K. Frank Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:14 PM To: Qt-interest Subject: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt? Hello List! This whole Elop thing got me thinking about the history of Qt and Nokia. Nothing's perfect, of course, and everything's a mixed bag, but, all in all, do people think Nokia's involvement with Qt ended up helping Qt or not? I started using Qt after Nokia acquired Trolltech (2008? 2009?) and then Nokia divested itself of Qt, if I remember correctly, in 2011, spinning off the commercial licensing to Digia. So I guess Nokia had Qt for three or four years. Did this detour (for lack of a better word) end up being helpful? Thanks. K. Frank ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/txHDrcanmFjGX2PQPOmvUvzSKb3+TPPm!QRWNw0plO!xcwPgo+dnhlp7j3JRijX9B08qPzQHNPLCXaTERp6oIw== to report this email as spam. This e-mail and the information, including any attachments, it contains are intended to be a confidential communication only to the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___ 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
