Re: [Interest] vs. Flutter

Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:00:49 -0800

1. Because my code is my organizations code and I don't have permission to share. (Commercial license) I do however file bugs, minimal examples and such, openly. 
2. Because the code I write is done to satisfy a specific requirement, not Qt in general. Qt does have some of the best APIs, whereas mine is writtenwith one goal: fill the immediate requirement. As a result, it may not be ideally implemented and is not likely to work for others..  I don't know my ObjC or JNI code is proper, it just does what I need and doesn't crash.
3. For things like notifications: I cannot test all the notification providers (AWS, Firebase, etc) on allt he platforms. (i.e. Apple Push Notification data structure does not match any of the others)
3a. We'd need to agree to a standard because you should be able to swap providers and the app not need any changes. Whereas if "Qt" did it, they wouldn't need a committee.
 
I could probably assist an effort by sharing experiences and non-application specific platform code but I would not want to lead/do it. For me, over the last 5 years I've  bit the bullet and hacked the native platform code, so I generally have it. So for me, it's not the biggest deal. But for anyone new to Qt or new to iOS/Android, the moment they learn that Qt doesn't have API coverage for some feature that mobile phones have had for 10 years, I'm sure they get a sinking feeling and vertigo. I get a mini version of it every time I start a new app because the first few hours is spent just getting a skeleton app set up with native feature that I do have code for. 
 
It also doesn't help that Qt does not (and can't, apparently) use Swift, as that code is much more friendly and is becoming plentiful. 
 
In the mean time, my company's staffing is complicated by having to find people knowlegeable in ObjC, Java, C, C++, _javascript_ and threading that needle is increasingly difficult. ObjC, C, C++ are in decline. Maybe this is a way to sell Qt Developer licenses? But I honestly don't think so.
 
So Qt's lack of mobile integration really hurts my organization. 
 
Unless Tukka et al commit to enhancing mobile, I will cease using Qt on Mobile. I think a lot of others will too. If Qt on Mobile is dead, I might as well take my chances with Google. At least people won't ask "What's Google" as they do with Qt.
 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:03 AM
From: "Vlad Stelmahovsky" <vladstelmahov...@gmail.com>
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] vs. Flutter

if you guys already did some code for mobiles, why dont just contribute back?

On 2/20/19 3:32 AM, Jason H wrote:
There's not anything I haven't done on mobile in Qt. The problem is everytime I start an app, I copy the 75% from the previous project and it's janky slap-dash of code. I've got to to this 3x for every app, every time. It's iOS, Android, and OSX. What I have works, it's not Troll quality. It is unforunately commercial code. I don't have hot-reload, but notificatons - push and local were working with Firebase on Android and iOS.
 
Yeah, it's a couple weeks to develop all of that, but we're dozens of programmers re-inventing the wheel time and time again. This is not "code less create more". A few weeks of a couple developers and this would be a completely different situation instead person-years are being wasted.
 
 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 8:09 PM
From: "Jérôme Godbout" <godbo...@amotus.ca>
To: "Lorne Sturtevant" <dra...@shaw.ca>, "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] vs. Flutter

I did try a bit V-Play, but I did not like the fact I was stuck at a particular Qt version (it was 5.6 when 5.10 was out, last time I checked). Does the new Felgo allow to be used on other versoin and with up to date Qt Creator? that was a real bummer to be stuck with old version. The project seem to be fine aside from that problems. The price is a hard pill to swallow, with Qt 3D I guess the V-Play was less future proof I guess.

 

From: Interest <interest-boun...@qt-project.org> On Behalf Of Lorne Sturtevant
Sent: February 19, 2019 7:04 PM
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] vs. Flutter

 

On 2019-02-19 3:22 p.m., Jason H wrote:

 

This Neptune3 thing, is that something we can use on the phones?

 

I've been following the discussion and it looks like a lot of features of flutter, such as the live reloading, push notification, etc, already exists in felgo (use to be vplay).  I used vplay for awhile, but it got too expensive so I just redid what I was using from their work myself.   Only took a couple of weeks.  My main point is that Qt can do all of this stuff because the felgo people already did.  It just has to be done by Qt and put into the core.
 

-- 
Lorne Sturtevant


Sum Ergo Cogito
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
 
 
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Reply via email to