so the question: how to make it matter? On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote:
> I've never seen it claimed that voting matters 1 iota. > > I guess what we're asking for here is more prioritization transparency? > > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 2:27 AM > *From:* "Vlad Stelmahovsky" <vladstelmahov...@gmail.com> > *To:* "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com> > *Cc:* interest <interest@qt-project.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [Interest] What don't you like about Qt? > Actually you can vote for it and promote to other users to vote for it. > More votes - more chances issue to be solved > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: >> >> This gets at what I don't like about Qt the most: As a user I have no >> control of where it goes. I can (and do) file bugs and feature >> suggestions... How they get prioritized, I have no control over. Sometimes >> it's months, sometimes it's multiple years later, very often it's never (or >> more correctly, still not implemented yet). This is despite being a paying >> customer. Once the issue is entered, it might get tagged with the support >> contract level I am on, but it's effectively out of my hands. >> >> >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 8:35 AM >> > From: "Konstantin Tokarev" <annu...@yandex.ru> >> > To: "Jean-Michaël Celerier" <jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com>, "Jason >> H" <jh...@gmx.com> >> > Cc: interest <interest@qt-project.org>, "Rob Allan" < >> rob_al...@trimble.com> >> > Subject: Re: [Interest] What don't you like about Qt? >> > >> > >> > >> > 21.09.2016, 15:28, "Jean-Michaël Celerier" <jeanmichael.celerier@gmail. >> com>: >> > > Hey, there is a lot of interesting points in all these answers; some >> similars, some not. >> > > >> > > Maybe a good way forward would be to try to pinpoint the problems >> more precisely with an online platform such >> > > as http://en.arguman.org/ ? Or even just some kind of google doc... >> > >> > I think wiki page would be a better alternative. >> > >> > > >> > > Starting from there would maybe make it easier for the Qt devs to >> weigh the "for" and "against" for the stuff that is often mentioned ? >> > >> > I doubt anyone here is going to weigh anything besides patches >> submitted to review. >> > >> > > Instead of having to find specific arguments in 45 mails... And then >> open some paths for contributions to try to alleviate the problems. >> > > >> > > My 0.0005 cents >> > > >> > > Best >> > > Jean-Michaël >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: >> > >>> I also can't help making a comparison with two other popular layout >> > >>> frameworks: WPF/XAML, and Android/AXML. In both of these worlds, >> the markup >> > >>> language and the "code-behind" class hierarchy of UI elements are >> > >>> absolutely equivalent 1st class citizens. Anything you can do in >> XAML, you >> > >>> can also do in the C# code-behind, whether it be creating controls, >> > >>> changing their properties, altering layouts, etc. Likewise in >> Android/AXML, >> > >>> I can (if I choose) create FrameLayouts, RelativeLayouts, >> TextViews, etc in >> > >>> code, and arrange them and manipulate them any way I like, as an >> > >>> alternative to creating an AXML designer layout. >> > >>> >> > >>> It seems unfortunate that Qt Quick doesn't take this approach, and >> that the >> > >>> "code-behind" experience is so limited. One reason that I've heard >> why it >> > >>> might have been done this way is that a rich and fully public C++ >> interface >> > >>> may have hamstrung the developers too much, as there would be >> constant >> > >>> breaking changes from one release to the next. If that's true then >> I guess >> > >>> I understand that, but I would still rather put up with a rich C++ >> > >>> interface that had breaking changes at new releases, than the >> relative >> > >>> limited C++ interface we have now. >> > >> >> > >> I'm not sure I follow. Declarituce UI is in. QML, React (+JSX) give >> you decaritive layouts. It convergent evolution of stucture±properties+code >> > >> >> > >> XAML, WPF, Qt Widgets all have structure and properties but no >> code. You've got to create the objects then in another context, assign >> code to them. >> > >> >> > >> If you are taking about how QQuickItems wrap C++ my understanding is >> that's because of the scene graph. My perspective is that the C++ side is >> better before I'm always having to drop from QML to C++ to expose stuff for >> QML. So I really don't understand your issue? >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> Interest mailing list >> > >> Interest@qt-project.org >> > >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >> > > , >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Interest mailing list >> > > Interest@qt-project.org >> > > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > Konstantin >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Interest mailing list >> Interest@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Vlad > -- Best regards, Vlad
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
