On Tuesday 08 May 2012 13:18:26 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > On 5/8/12 12:08 PM, "ext Frank Hemer" <fr...@hemer.org> wrote: > >On Tuesday 08 May 2012 09:50:16 Peter Kuemmel wrote: > >> > > Now we suddenly have an easy to use, yet compulsory, Turing complete > >> > > language with essentially no support from off-the-shelf tools. > >> > > >> > It's this "compulsory" part that I don't understand. > >> > The current situation is that if you don't want to use > >> > QML you don't use it. > >> > >> Does "don't use it" mean I should use QWidgets? > >> But who wants to base a new project on a system which > >> is officially called something that sounds like "obsolete" > >> and "dead (no new features)"; I know the marketing calls this > >> only "done". > > > >+1 with a big '!' > > There's quite some work ongoing right now to get the QPA layer for the > desktop platforms just right, so that widgets work as they did in Qt 4.x. > They are being tested for regressions etc., so they won't suddenly stop > working. > > Nokia has stated that the company doesn't see QWidget's as their area of > focus for the future. Since nobody else has stepped up yet, this implies > that widgets have a 'done' status (which is *not* deprecated or even > dead). > > Neither me nor anybody else in the Qt project is stopping anybody from > doing more work there. Actually I personally will be very happy if someone > continues to work on them and improve them. > > But it won't magically happen by itself. This has been stated before, I'll > repeat it nevertheless: > > If you have an interest in new features here, you should consider stepping > up and investing. Either by investing your time and developing yourself or > by funding someone else to do the work (e.g. by buying a commercial > license or working with one of the many Qt partner companies).
... which I have for many years now ... > >> ... > >> There is no smooth migration path for old-school Qt/C++ developers. > > > >And I expect porting an application using QWidget & friens to become an > >qml > >application will cause at least equal pain as porting a qt3 application > >to > >qt4:-( > > > >What I miss is the perspective for applications with long sales cycles > >(expect > >this to be 10 to 15 years). Could we see a chance for a smooth migration > >here ... like a qml replacement for QWidgets that do NOT imply a complete > >redesing? > > > >Having that said, I'm still convinced qml will have a gread future - its > >just > >not a good signal to notice that longterm basic components like QWidget > >get > >suddenly shot out of the dark, end up as 'done' and the replacement AFAIK > > > >comes with a real heavy impact of redesign. > > QML components for the desktop are still work in progress. Because of that > let's wait and see what kind of migration path can be offered. I know it's > possible to create something that would allow for a stepwise migration and > a peaceful coexistence. This is also what I'd like to aim for, but as > anything else also this requires someone to invest time or money into it. I've been following this thread for quite a while now - and I felt like speaking up as this is probably of a major concern not just for me. I simply want to encourage the need for a smooth migration path - I'm a commercial user (hello digia;-) but due to non-existent public lists at digia I felt like adding this somewhere in public. I appreciate your work on qt a lot and want to add my 2ct for keeping it at the high level it already is. Frank _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
