Hi,

Feedback on the Qt 6 API is valuable and we are very interested in it. 
Portability was one of the key design principles and we have avoided making 
changes when not needed. That said, there can surely be some items that are 
unnecessarily changed.

Knowing what is the problem and the intended use case helps to have this 
discussion. Our API review process is fully open, but it is natural that users 
do not want to necessarily engage in it. So we welcome the feedback on the API 
also now and will try to seek ways to improve based on it.

Yours,

Tuukka

________________________________
Lähettäjä: Interest <interest-boun...@qt-project.org> käyttäjän Turtle Creek 
Software <supp...@turtlesoft.com> puolesta
Lähetetty: tiistaina, maaliskuuta 23, 2021 1:36 ap.
Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org
Aihe: Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 23

Re: willy-nilly

I find this discussion interesting, because we ranted on the Cocoa-dev list for 
a while and probably sounded a lot like Roland.  That was after we spent 3 
years porting our C++ desktop app from Mac Carbon to Cocoa, and barely got half 
done.  With huge effort we might have finished about now, just in time for M1, 
Swift and SwiftUI rewrites. It seemed prudent to give up instead.

Many people seem to be looking for the same thing: a stable platform that will 
stick around for a decade or more. They're not finding it, in Qt or anywhere.  
Summed up in this post:

https://blog.royalsloth.eu/posts/sad-state-of-cross-platform-gui-frameworks/

After leaving Cocoa behind, we tried updating our Windows app with MFC. That 
was a horrible year. WinUi3 promises to make C++ apps easier but it probably 
will stay vapor or be bungled.  So we tried Qt.

After 8 months, so far it is working great for our needs. We may even ship 
something by late 2021.  But Qt's long-term future seems rather grim, and that 
is very discouraging.  We have 15 programmer-years of cross-platform business 
logic that's pining away for lack of a decent GUI framework that sticks around 
for long enough to recoup the investment.

I can relate to anyone who is unhappy about deprecated functions.  It is never 
fun when existing code breaks.  We want to be inventing new stuff, not going 
back and fixing old code just to stay in the same place.  The C++ language has 
been decent about advancing, but still keeping ancient code stable.  Windows 
bends over backwards to stay backwards compatible. I think it's a basic 
courtesy that all platforms owe to developers.  Programming is hard. Doing 
things once should be enough.

We know a lot about construction, accounting and estimating, and enough about 
programming to make useful software for it. But we need tools that let us spend 
time creating actual solutions.  Not reinventing wheels just to have the same 
GUI.

Casey McDermott
TurtleSoft.com
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Reply via email to