Scroll down and watch the video. QML is an 800 lb gorilla trying to ride
in a 2 cylinder car.
http://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/raspberry-qt-part-12-qml-blows-big-stinky-chunks/
Nasty worthless resource pig which exists only to pursue script kiddies.
On 10/19/2017 04:38 AM, Vlad Stelmahovsky wrote:
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 <mailto:rol...@logikalsolutions.com>> wrote:
On 10/17/2017 12:54 PM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org
<mailto: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.com
<http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com>
http://www.infiniteexposure.net <http://www.infiniteexposure.net>
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
<http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog>
http://lesedi.us/
http://onedollarcontentstore.com <http://onedollarcontentstore.com>
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org <mailto:Interest@qt-project.org>
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
<http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest>
--
Best regards,
Vlad
--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
http://lesedi.us/
http://onedollarcontentstore.com
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
