QML is not that resource hogging as JS. dont use JS and you'll be fine On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Roland Hughes <rol...@logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/17/2017 12:54 PM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote: > > On ter?a-feira, 17 de outubro de 2017 08:11:13 PDT Roland Hughes wrote: > > The bug tracking system is under our control - it will not just > disappear (from our perspective). > > Oh yes it will! > > Speaking as someone who has heard that soooooo many times before, let's > just count a few for Qt shall we. > > The Trolltech bug database was never going to just disappear (from our > perspective). It did. A tiny fraction of the bugs migrated to the new > system but most were mass exterminated with > > The TT TT was not a public database. It existed internally only. When we > switched to a public bugtracker, we could only export some entries since many > had confidential customer information. Those that were exported had to be > review by a person to make sure we were not violation any NDAs or > confidentiality. > > That's the same reason why the code repository starts with Qt 4.5, not earlier > versions. > > > "The version this bug is reported against is no longer supported..." > > The Nokia bug tracker was never going to just disappear (from our > perspective). It did. Few, if any of the older bugs made it into the > current database. Most were mass exterminated with > > There was no Nokia database. We switched straight from the internal tdb > (that's what it was called) to JIRA. > > There was a Nokia bug base as well, at least for a while. I and others > entered bugs into it back in the day. Your argument also re-enforces a > great many bugs "simply disappeared." > > I hear from quite a few companies in similar boats. They started > development for a medical/industrial device which had a lengthy > testing/approval process, filed bug reports for that version only to see > them rot or fall victim to a mass extermination. > > Most open source projects don't support old versions, since they don't have > the manpower to do so. > > > The current owners of Qt and the current OpenSource maintainers don't > offer or seem to understand the concept of an LTS (Long Term Support) > version. They are constantly pursuing script kiddies and that worthless > QML instead of maintaining the base which built them. This will soon > force a fork in the OpenSource project. One which rips out all of the > QML and focuses on nothing but bug fixes for 12 years. Yes, 12 years. > > Again, offence taken. > > Take all of the offense you want. Medical devices and industrial controls > need LTS versions, not resource hogging QML features. Qt's chasing of the > idiot phone market which has 6 months at best life spans is alienating and > chasing away the very industries which made Qt successful. > > > I don't know who plans on forking. There's no such division in the community, > so any attempt to do so will probably start with very few developers. Almost > certainly, fewer than critical mass to maintain the codebase. > > See TQt (Trinity Project) for an example of a fork attempt. > > It's easy to fork something you have been maintaining internally for > years. There _IS_ such a division. You don't know about it because they > don't come here. They justifiably believe they've been abandoned. The > relentless pursuit of "new cool features" to please the phone crowd is > causing the much larger medical device and industrial control industries to > create their own LTS. > > How many questions have you seen on here over the past 18 months about Qt > 3? That project Harmman (sp?) calls about periodically sells north of a > million units per year and the company is maintaining Qt 3 on its own so > they can make minor product enhancements which don't have to go though > multi-year clinical trials. They aren't the only calls I get about products > using Qt 3, 4.2, and the most likely soon to be orphaned (if not already) > 4.8. Every company I am contacted about using earlier versions has their > own staff maintaining the code base today. They have had no other choice. > If anything, joining forces with someone who is not a competitor but using > the same tool set will lighten their load. > > -- > Roland Hughes, President > Logikal Solutions > (630)-205-1593 > http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.comhttp://www.infiniteexposure.nethttp://www.johnsmith-book.comhttp://www.logikalblog.comhttp://www.interestingauthors.com/bloghttp://lesedi.us/http://onedollarcontentstore.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > > -- Best regards, Vlad
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
