That's some brutal stuff. Comments interjected. > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 9:40 AM > From: "Roland Hughes" <rol...@logikalsolutions.com> > To: "Artem Sidyakin" <artem.sidya...@qt.io> > Cc: "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Interest] What you don't like about Qt > > On 09/23/2016 11:11 AM, Artem Sidyakin wrote: > >> Digia > > From the 1st of May it’s The Qt Company now :) > Thank you for that information. > > > >> NOBODY will pay royalties, period > > Participating in calls and meetings with customers, I see a different > > picture. > Having been in IT over 30 years now working as a consultant for I don't > even remember how many companies, both Fortune 50 and those with < 35 > people, I have never encountered one. I have encountered thousands which > will spend "reasonable amounts" on toolkits which provide unlimited and > unrestricted use, but not one which would pay per-item royalties. > > If one lives long enough you can see the same mistakes repeated at least > 3 times. This per item royalty notion got floated during the > mainframe/mid-range go-go days. Pretty much every company which floated > the notion died a quick and horrible death. > > During the DOS and GUI-DOS (Windows 3.x and earlier were NOT operating > systems they were launched via C:\win) a whole rash of companies tried > this royalty thing. Developers had no problem paying huge (for the time) > dollars getting commercial grade compilers and tools, but would not pay > one red cent in royalties. I remember having spent big bucks on .RTLink > like many of my clients and most of the Fortune 100. .RTLink decided > none of us had paid enough so they tried to move to a royalty scheme. I > stress the word "tried." Almost overnight the industry switched to > Blinker. You know what? I did a Web search before writing this. Blinker > is _still_ being sold. Yes, people still do DOS development, I turned > down a contract for it less than a month ago. Various DOS flavors run an > awful lot of expensive embedded devices. Stuff which starts at 1/4 > million dollars and goes up from there. > > http://www.grafxsoft.com/2blinker.htm > > Here is the only thing I could find on .RTLink after a 5 minute search > with multiple search engines. > http://corphist.computerhistory.org/corphist/documents/doc-43e9481924779.pdf > > The same story is true for pretty much every tool of the day which tried > the royalty path. > >> arthritic dog running in deep snow called QML > >> script kiddies > > I find the concept of dividing the application to front-end (QML) and > > back-end (C++) very convenient and helpful. That was a truly brilliant idea > > to implement such concept in Qt. > > I used same approach being .NET/ASP.MVC developer back in my days. But I > > guess, I’m just a script-kiddy, so it explains. > It was an ill thought out disaster prone to catastrophe leaving massive > quantities of signals firing off into the mist and developers hoping > they don't kill the neighbor's dog. I'm at a client which is suffering > from just such a QML with Agile catastrophe. One developer (who is no > longer here, possibly not employed as a programmer anywhere now) drank > the QML Kool-aid and was making everything in the back end a property > with NOTIFY signals even if it had absolutely NOTHING to do with user > interaction.
You seem to confuse a bad developer, Agile, and QML. The fact is superfluous notify goes no where, so that's not the issue. I've used signals successfully on high availability HTTP[S] servers. I don't see how Agile is an issue. A lot of older people (which you clearly are) have contempt for Agile. I've forcibly been dragged into Agile. I see it as valid, but not without shortcomings. But blaming agile for this is not appropriate. It's akin to an ad hominem attack or a strawman argument. > Various other developers have come along and tried to clean up this > monstrosity which fails spasticly in the field. (Agile _always_ produces > a catastrophe when used for any system of consequence.) This isn't necessarily so. Below the layer of Agile, are standard software engineering practices. Agile is just a project management style, it does not dictate software engineering practices. It seems that the software engineering practices are to blame. > Guess what? There is no text editor one can use or bag of dried chicken > bones one can shake to identify NOTIFY signals which are unused. One > developer made the mistake of trusting the IDE search. A lot of NOTIFY > signals which were actually in use went away. > > Guess what? QML provides zero, count them zero methods of compile time > verification for signal connections. The _only_ way of identifying these > problems is to have a console connected to your embedded devices AND be > watching real close. Despite all of the efforts to provide compile time > diagnostics to the connect() statement, Qt went and added this rotted > fish of an interface called QML which provides _nothing_ to assist > making stable systems lives quite literally depend on. That's just javascript. And it is a valid criticism. That's why Microsoft invented TypeScript, and that's also why Google and Microsoft are writing Angular 2 in TypeScript. Though the runtime connections are a problem. Things like that can be validated with a unit and functional testing. > >> Just take a look at how badly QML runs on the Raspberry Pi with a quad > >> core and Gig of RAM. > >> http://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/raspberry-qt-part-12-qml-blows-big-stinky-chunks/ > > Yeah, this link was here before. Author was asked back then, how about > > benchmarking Qt Quick Controls 2? But I don’t remember his answer to that. > > I have a stock RPi 3 on my desk and I use it in my development with QML. > > Cannot really complain about anything. > Speaking as the author, his answer was the code was up on the site in a > Zip file and those who wanted to try it on a Raspberry Pi using > libraries not in the current Pi repos were welcome to run their own > tests posting the results here. The resounding silence means they > achieved the same sucky outcome. "On the CPU level the performance is similar to a 300 MHz Pentium II of 1997–99." The fact that Qt runs -at-all- on this Armv6 with 256Mb RAM should be considered a triumph. You simply cannot get ferarri speed out of Ford pinto without it ending badly. While it is ok to be critical of Qt, please try to do it in a constructive manner. And as Thaigo always says: "patches are accepted" _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
