while I really disappointed with this decision, I dont agree that Qt6 is
dead because of its build system. we are using Qt not because of qmake
Also, Qbs is open source, so its also not dead.
br
On 10/30/18 10:50 AM, Denis Shienkov wrote:
Hi all, my personal things:
Welcome to the era of stagnation and dinosaurs. The new
"revolutioning" Qt6 will be released semi-dead. It will
be overgrowned with mold, moss and fungi in the form of
CMake. This will not be a new life, but it will be an
attempt to prolong the convulsions.
A real new life could give the QBS, that pushed be a new
branch of the spiral of development. It would stimulate
be the QBS integration with others IDE and etc.
PS: I don't know, what is it: or an "effective management"
or an "evil intent" or an "CMake lobby", or "not enough
money". Perhaps the thesis that "Millions of flies cannot
be mistaken when they choose shit" works here.
Anyway, RIP QBS, You were a great friend, I never forget you.
I drink Vodka and grieve about the innocently murdered projects
for the sake of conjuncture.
== R I P, QBS ==
IMHO, :(
вт, 30 окт. 2018 г. в 12:08, Richard Weickelt <rich...@weickelt.de
<mailto:rich...@weickelt.de>>:
> Qbs is something that has been developed almost exclusively by
The Qt
> Company. As such, TQtC had to also look at it from a business
perspective
> and how it fits into the larger picture of making Qt successful.
To make
> a long story short, while Qbs is pretty cool and interesting
technology,
> it doesn’t really help us expand the Qt ecosystem and usage.
Qbs has made the development of multi-platform applications with
multiple
libraries a breeze for me. Even projects that contain firmware for
different
target architectures in addition to a Qt application are no
problem at all
with Qbs. Thanks to Qbs, I can focus on code and not on the build
system. I
achieve more in less time.
I always thought that Qbs was a great example for using QML.
> To make Qbs really successful would require a rather large
effort and
> investment in promoting it towards the larger C++ ecosystem as a new
> build tool. At the same time it has to be an open source product
to stand
> any chance in the market. Together this makes it challenging for
TQtC to
> see how to recover that investment. Thus this investment would
be at the
> expense of other things we’d like to do, like improving our IDE,
working
> on rearchitecting and cleaning up our core frameworks for Qt 6
or the
> design tooling we are currently investing into. The Qt Company
believes
> that those other investments are more important for the future
of Qt than
> our choice of build tool.
It seems that Qbs never got much traction within the Qt Company
either.
Outside the regular blog posts, I don't see any attempt to promote Qbs
anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong. I may have noticed that Jake
Petroules
did his best to get the word out, but I guess that was his private
mission
rather than his official role in the Qt Company. What I can't
complain about
is the unprecedented dedication and professionalism of Christian,
Jörg and
Jake on this project. Also all support questions were answered in
lightning
speed.
> As such, we were left with the question on whether we need Qbs
as the
> build system for Qt 6 or whether cmake (as the other
alternative) would
> be up to the task.
> [..]
> Given that we are confident we can build Qt 6 with cmake, I
believe that
> it makes most sense to follow down that route. In case you’re
interested,
> you can have a look at the cmake prototype code for qtbase on
Gerrit in
> the wip/cmake branch. Please also let us know if you’re
interested in
> helping with the effort of porting Qt’s build system over to cmake.
>
> We have been developing Qbs over the last years, and as such are
> committed to it for some more time. We are planning on another
feature
> release in the first quarter of next year and will support it in Qt
> Creator for at least another year. Qbs is open source and if someone
> wants to take over and develop it further let us know as well.
I’d also
> like to use this place to thank Christian and Jörg for all their
great
> work on Qbs (and of course also anybody else who contributed to
it).
How can we leverage from the next half year to smoothly turn Qbs
into a
community-owned OS project? Does anybody know a positive
role-model for this?
I don't want to miss out on the productivity gains I've made with
Qbs, but
on the other hand I have very little free time. However, I would
voluntarily
contribute to the documentation of Qbs.
Richard
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
