On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:20:43 +0100, Sérgio Martins wrote: > Please state your top ones, even if it was already stated by someone > else, so we have an idea about which ones matter more.
a) C++ ( far beyond everything else ) The 2 language approach is a pain. In our application we have thousands of totally pointless lines of code only for bridging between C++ libs and QML. Having a compact syntax - for code, that would be trivial in C++ as well - IMO simply doesn't justify this extra work. Beside that QML has bad instantiation times for large projects and its concept of item composition makes applications heavy. More than 30 QObjects for a button ( Quick Control 1 ) says it all. My experience with working on C++ controls with an optional QML API shows how surprisingly easy it would have been to have both APIs. Too sad, that with Qt Quick Control 2 this chance has been missed. b) Vector graphics Qt has no strategy for handling vector graphics - neither Widgets nor Qt Quick. Not having full featured layout classes ( dynamic constraints etc ) are another problem, when trying to implement user interfaces, that need to work on different devices. c) Compatibility policies The compatibility policy of Qt makes it impossible to fix design problems of X.0 versions. This leads to adding balconies instead of getting the foundations stable. F.e. have a look at the font/locale propagation. It obviously has been identified as being forgotten and has been added to QQuickControl ( Quick controls 2 ) - instead of QQuickItem. In consequence Qt Quick Control 2 does not play together with controls of other libs ( and v.v ). e) X11 paint engine Being the maintainer of the Qwt project I'm missing a hardware accelerated paint engine, that just works. -- In general I would like to see Qt being more focused on what it is good at - for me this is cross platform desktop development ( Qt/Widgets ) and Qt Embedded projects - not Android/iOS. A a long term goal I would also like to see desktop and embedded technologies being reunited. Even if user interfaces on desktop and for embedded are ( and probably will stay ) different I don't see why writing them needs to be totally different. My 2 cents, Uwe _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
