Hi, On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:42:26 +0100 Milian Wolff <m...@milianw.de> wrote: > Sorry, but how is "it takes long to compile" and argument for or > against a piece of software if there is no feature equivalent > alternative that takes less time to compile? > > Qt WebEngine is far easier to compile than Qt WebKit in my > experience, and it certainly doesn't take significantly longer. And > of course the former is far superior than the latter.
I'm late to this thread, I know. But in fact on Windows the situation is arguably a bit worse: QtWebEngine can _only_ be compiled using (free as in beer) MSVC 2013. In particular, MinGW is explicitly _not_ supported. This is not only an uncomfortable situation for a free software project to be in. If you're trying to interface with third libraries that happen to be MinGW-only, for various reasons, it can be between no-fun-at-all, and downright incompatibility. Remember, the C++-ABI is just not compatible between MinGW and MSVC. I have no idea how hard it would be to resolve this (it is rumored to be hard), but until it is, I would advise KDE projects to be very reluctant about moving away from QtWebKit, unless and until they have very compelling reason to do so. For use cases such as "display some trusted local HTML files", I think QtWebKit is still the tool of choice. Regards Thomas
pgpawCAqDAbVA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature