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
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
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 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,
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
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
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
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
(
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
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?
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
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 ?
12 matches
Mail list logo
