If you allow me my two cents:

I'm not a good enough programmer to know how does one deal with the promises of long term support for certain hardware while juggling with new exciting hardware. And I do agree that likely 90% of the edge cases will be commercial situations that should pay for their support. The exact business model is a whole other can of worms and I'm not economist or manager either.

What I would like to see, though, was a tech stack that isn't "duplicated" and doesn't feel like it's competing with itself, that ends up with both offerings leaving users choosing the least bad option. That's also how I guess most people feel about GUI's in C++ and Qt as a whole. I've heard the "Qt is the least bad X-platform C++ GUI SDK". Not best, just least bad.

Also, look at some subtle stuff. I've had people agree with me that Qt Quick docs are subpar compared with the rest of the framework, especially on the QML side. Are we dealing with lower standards or just lack of maturity?

I look at other ecosystems with envy. Now especially C#. Xamarin now soon-to-be .NET MAUI, Avalonia UI, Uno Framework, Blazor WASM... I love C++, and I don't want to change. I even like most of the C++ evolution is having since the C++17, C++20, and now the expected C++23. But grass does look greener on the other side...

As someone said in the original thread, I think mostly people are bitter out of "sadness" and not out of hate. We want this to work.

Oh well,
Rui

Às 17:23 de 03/05/2021, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) escreveu:
On 5/3/21, 11:40 AM, "Interest on behalf of Matthew Woehlke" 
<interest-boun...@qt-project.org on behalf of mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> wrote:

     Isn't it obvious? Once upon a time, before they "lost their way", Qt was
     useful to him. He was passionate about *that* Qt and wants it back.

     I understand *exactly* how he feels.

I get the frustration.  But I think the world moved, and Qt didn't really have 
a choice.  If you are building for a single OS and single (fixed) hardware, you 
can keep code stable.  How do you do that when you are cross platform and have 
to make changes to support M1 chips in new Macs?

I don't think you can, certainly not for every OS and Qt version that worked 
before.  If you need specific hardware/OS supported longer term, but need 
updates to Qt, Qt has the option of paying for commercial support for that 
configuration.  Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Expecting Qt to work for new compilers/OSes, but not break _anything_ doesn't 
seem realistic when even the C++ language itself is changing.

What would you have Qt do differently?

Brett

_______________________________________________
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