Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-10-14 Thread Jason H
That's some brutal stuff. Comments interjected. > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 9:40 AM > From: "Roland Hughes" <rol...@logikalsolutions.com> > To: "Artem Sidyakin" <artem.sidya...@qt.io> > Cc: "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-p

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-10-14 Thread Roland Hughes
On 09/23/2016 11:11 AM, Artem Sidyakin wrote: Digia From the 1st of May it’s The Qt Company now :) Thank you for that information. NOBODY will pay royalties, period Participating in calls and meetings with customers, I see a different picture. Having been in IT over 30 years now working

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-09-23 Thread Konstantin Tokarev
23.09.2016, 22:17, "Jason H" : > > Even the old Qt UI files were somewhat declarative, with signal/slot mappings > included in the UI file. This sounds like you are not sure what word "declarative" means. Of course, UI file is 100% declarative, irrespectively from if

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-09-23 Thread Jason H
> > Actually, the entire industry is moving to declarative. > > Declarative with mandatory bits of imperative Javascript? Well with blanket statement being admittedly blanket in nature and subject to all the caveats therein, yes. I realize that many of you are embedded engineers, and will

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-09-23 Thread André Pönitz
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 05:13:44PM +0200, Jason H wrote: > > > Not an isolated case. Client after client tells the same story. The > > licensing > > team at Digia must be paid on commission because _every_ use requires a > > license when you first contact them. > > FWIW, My dealings with the

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-09-23 Thread Artem Sidyakin
> Digia From the 1st of May it’s The Qt Company now :) > because of this attempt to squeeze licensing and royalties out of the general > public > I highly suspect the LGPL3 move was done to help squeeze So, in your opinion it is totally fair to create “closed” products (TiVoization) using

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-09-23 Thread Roland Hughes
On 09/23/2016 10:13 AM, Jason H wrote: What I don't like right now about Qt is the 3-legged arthritic dog running in deep snow called QML. It was a bastardized concept when first conceived and it hasn't gotten any better. Nokia started that concept which explains why they are non-existent in

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-09-23 Thread Jason H
> Not an isolated case. Client after client tells the same story. The > licensing team at Digia must be paid on commission because _every_ use > requires a license when you first contact them. FWIW, My dealings with the licensing people have been good. > What I don't like right now about Qt

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-09-23 Thread Roland Hughes
On 09/23/2016 06:18 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: 23.09.2016, 13:50, "Roland Hughes" : [snip] What I don't like right now about Qt is the 3-legged arthritic dog running in deep snow called QML. It was a bastardized concept when first conceived and it hasn't gotten

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-09-23 Thread Tuukka Turunen
> -Original Message- > From: Interest [mailto:interest-bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt.io@qt- > project.org] On Behalf Of Roland Hughes > Sent: perjantaina 23. syyskuuta 2016 13.50 > To: interest@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt &

Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt

2016-09-23 Thread Roland Hughes
Tried replying to this earlier, but didn't see the content come up so will toss in my 0.0003 cents on this thread. >>- C++ is difficult, Qt lacks quality bindings for mainstream languages - moc (on build systems that don't automate this step) - FUD around licensing Well, Digia has itself to