My response to your question is a request for more details about your current abilities as a software developer.
What platforms and languages (compiled, scripted, anything that can run) are you comfortable and experienced with ? The older versions of Qt were exclusively C++, so if you did not know C++, the first step would have been to start learning C++ See where I am going with this ? I feel your question is too broad to be answered easily. “Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.” Bill Waterson (Calvin & Hobbes) ----- Mark Griffith <markgriff...@yahoo.com> wrote: > . > > I'd like to ask about books anyone can recommend for beginner developers > using QT. The tutorials on the site have some value, but they really aren't > good enough, as I explain below. If you're bored easily, don't read on. > > -- -- -- -- -- > > I'm a bit wearied by the constant use of undefined special words like > 'binaries', 'declarative', 'parent', and sentences like "To use the > states.png image in your application, you must copy it to the > project directory (same subdirectory as the QML file) from the examples > directory in the Qt installation directory." where this is the first time > 'states.png' gets mentioned. > > I'm not totally computer-illiterate - I have reasonable maths skills as an > ex-economist, and have built several websites unaided in straight HTML > without using an editing package or code editor. I have written simple > programs. But I do have a life outside this world, and would like to see > software documentation conform to the same standards of clarity we expect > from (say) people who write company annual reports to shareholders - which is > about the same level of inherent complexity that needs to be cleaned up. > > Also, I must concede that software writing has improved hugely in twenty > years. It's gone from about 10% comprehensible to about 40% comprehensible, > which is of course a massive achievement, though nowhere near good enough. > > Nonetheless, software documentation, QT included, still has a long long way > to go before it is as lucid as it could be and should be. > > It could all be hugely better if software firms forgot technical writers and > employed real commercial writers (like the writers who work at ad agencies > and magazines) to rewrite and re-edit all these tutorials. That and proper > footnotes _on the same page_ defining each term and offering extra clarity > would transform computing overnight. > > Rant over. Thanks if you have book suggestions. > > Mark _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
