On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Atlant Schmidt <aschm...@dekaresearch.com> wrote: > Peter, et al.: > >> We don't wanna use obsolete stuff with a "architecture from >> the 90s" in times where "graphical technology has moved on" (Thiago). > > Computer architectures don't necessarily "become obsolete". > Oh, trends come and trends go, but the fundamental concepts > go on forever. For example, Linux is quite popular even > though it is arguably a "computer architecture from 1970".
Computer architecture don't necessarily become obsolete but also it could as easily become obsolete. There is no rule saying either. Many "core" technologies like how programming languages work ( C/C++) or how operating systems, filesystems etc work have been very stable technologies and there has been only minor evolution. C/Unix skills from 80's are still mostly valid today. On other sections, mostly in user interface there has been rapid evolution and several revolutions that have changed all scene. You can just count, Unix/C started from typewriter terminal age when UI was line based fully modal dialog. Now this is fully obsoleted from mainstream users and remains as coders programming language. Then age of crt-terminals and text based forms UI, once again fully obsoleted from everywhere. Then next revolution was windowing UI with mouse, it got about current form in first Macintosh in 1984 and after that there was been very little evolution. You cant say that moving from typewriter to windowed UI is just a trend, it was total paradigm shift. QWidgets are designed perfectly fit to this 1984 paradigm. Invention of current mobile finger based UI was a start of next revolution and once again we can't say that it is just a trend when users move from desktops/laptops to tablets and handsets and all computer market is shared again. At the moment, Qml is only reasonable solution for mobile applications for tablets and handsets but at the moment QWidgets are still perfect match for desktop apps. There is a big question: why any more make application that runs on desktop only and needs major rewrite for mobile platforms. Why make QWidget UI and then rewrite for Qml UI for mobile or why make application for desktop only. I agree that there are a many applications that are desktop only like CAD programs etc but for all other appls. It would be much better solution to make C++ core and then make Qml UI for desktop and other for mobile. I have used this method personally and based on my personal experience making separate Qml for desktop and mobile is less than 1% of work. Much less than making desktop UI with QWidgets and then mobile with Qml. Then the other big question, what happens in future and should we prepare for it rather than slowly adapt on it. It is already known that tablets sell more than desktops and it is predicted that they outsell laptops on 2015 but i bet that it happens earlier, may be end of 2013. I have been using iPad since first model and I have also couple of Android tablets. When I count "normal" usage, web, email etc, I can do everything with tablet. If I need write longer mails, I can use bluetooth keyboard. There is still place for laptops and even high end desktops for special use like software development, CAD programs etc but that can be counted as special use. I would like to say, that in most cases, applications should be written so that they will also run on mobile because world is moving to that direction. > Often, the proponents arguing for "new and improved" are > simply arguing for the position they think will be most fun > to work on; after all, it's always more fun to break exciting > new ground than it is to have trod the same old sod yet again. > But many of these new approaches are just "fashion" and if you > wait a few years, fashions will change again and "old and > obsolete" will be back in fashion (and often, simply because > good sense has returned to the design community). Moving from typewritter to crt was not a fashion, moving from crt to windowing UI was not a fashion, moving to mobile is not a fashion but permanent shange. > >> Most people don't care what happens under the hood (QWidget >> or QML) when good desktop support is available. > > And some of us *DO* care very much what goes on under the > hood. Me, I live in an embedded world running on a ~450 MHz > processor with very limited RAM and graphics. There's just > enough "stuff" there to make the traditional Qt approach > work (just barely) but if the only choice Qt intends to > offer me in the future is going to burden me with the > overhead of a JavaScript (or even web) runtime, then I'm > going to need a new graphical framework. There is always some special cases as there are cases of command line UI or text-forms UI. Kate > Old and obsolete worked for me; New and improved (in this > case) clearly isn't likely to. > > Atlant > > -----Original Message----- > From: development-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch....@qt-project.org > [mailto:development-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch....@qt-project.org] On > Behalf Of Peter Kümmel > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 02:12 > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] The place of QML > > On 16.05.2012 20:31, qtnext wrote: >> I am using Qt since 12 years or more... I have done a lot of work using >> qwidget, qgraphiscview, .... >> I have done some small apps with qml to display media : it works very well >> ... just the animation are a a litlle bit >> jerky and work not well on very small computer ... >> But now that Qt5 is here : the alpha seems very promising regarding >> performance ... and I have started a new big desktop >> application and I plan to use only Qml and it seems very promising .. I am >> sure that Quick2 is the way for new desktop >> application : We only need Qt desktop components, treeview, ... and it will >> rocks :) > > Yes, that's the point. Most people don't care what happens under the hood > (QWidget or QML) > when good desktop support is available. But currently for desktop apps you > have the choice > between a "obsolete architecture" (Thiago) and an incomplete QML stack. > > Non technicians don't care about if QWidget is done or not if it fits the > needs, > but we are developers! We don't wanna use obsolete stuff with a > "architecture from the 90s" in times where "graphical technology has moved > on" (Thiago). > But on the desktop we are forced to when we wanna a feature rich/complete > framework. > > So all the QML<->QWidget discussions are mainly because there is no complete > Qml support on the desktop. > > Desktop support has no high priority more anywhere. > It couldn't be so complex to make good Qml support on the desktop, simply > throw > 5 man years on it (shouldn't be impossible when there are already 200 Qt > developers > at Nokia alone). But it doesn't happen because nobody wanna invest in the > desktop. > > So all you can do is using a system with a "obsolete architecture", diving > deep > into QML and writing your own desktop elements, or waiting another one or two > years. > > And I don't like any of the options. > > Peter > > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
