Re: [Development] QTBUG-43096 - QML instantiation performance decadence

2018-05-25 Thread Jean-Michaël Celerier
> Why does it need to be? I have never needed to subclass QQuickControl, personally, so I have never brought this topic up. It's not about subclassing QQuickControl, it's about running code without a JIT / interpreter. Even if the cost in startup time and performance is minimal, it is not as fast

Re: [Development] QTBUG-43096 - QML instantiation performance decadence

2018-05-25 Thread Robin Burchell
On Fri, May 25, 2018, at 9:14 PM, Uwe Rathmann wrote: > On the Qt Conn 2016 Andrew ( Knight ) presented our very first results, > when comparing 4 different implementations of an average button. > > a) a button from Quick Controls 1 > b) a button from Quick Controls 2 > c) a custom button compose

Re: [Development] QTBUG-43096 - QML instantiation performance decadence

2018-05-25 Thread Robin Burchell
On Fri, May 25, 2018, at 4:31 PM, Uwe Rathmann wrote: > But at the time, when Controls 2 has been started everything was on the > table and - at least from the outside - it looked like a comfortable > situation for making good decisions. And this is what I had expected to > happen: What happens

Re: [Development] QTBUG-43096 - QML instantiation performance decadence

2018-05-25 Thread Uwe Rathmann
On Fri, 25 May 2018 14:30:05 +0200, Robin Burchell wrote: > I have over the years avoided using QQC1 in several projects as > I knew that the performance simply wasn't up to the task without ever > trying it "seriously", instead developing custom controls ... Please let me give a detailed answer

Re: [Development] QTBUG-43096 - QML instantiation performance decadence

2018-05-25 Thread Uwe Rathmann
Hi Robin, > From my own perspective, I think Controls 1 was a well-intentioned ... Agreed and to be honest I'm really impressed about what was doable in QML, but it also showed where its limitations are. But at the time, when Controls 2 has been started everything was on the table and - at lea

Re: [Development] QTBUG-43096 - QML instantiation performance decadence

2018-05-25 Thread Sérgio Martins
On 2018-05-25 12:12, Uwe Rathmann wrote: So for the next generation of our product we started to implement our own framework on top of the C++ part of Qt/Quick ( https://github.com/uwerat/qskinny ). Our user interface today consists about ~200K lines of code ( pure C++ ) and so far I can say tha

Re: [Development] QTBUG-43096 - QML instantiation performance decadence

2018-05-25 Thread Simon Hausmann
Hi, And to add what Robin said, solely focused on the task in question that was closed: I ran benchmarks comparing a release build of 5.12 against 5.1.1 and ran the benchmark mentioned in the task, where Qt 5.12 came out in average faster by a factor of 4. More details as well as the concr

Re: [Development] QTBUG-43096 - QML instantiation performance decadence

2018-05-25 Thread Robin Burchell
Hi Uwe, I had predicted a response, so this mail comes as no surprise to me :) Personal opinions on various things ahead, the reader may disagree with me, that's perfectly normal and OK. >From my own perspective, I think Controls 1 was a well-intentioned mistake. It >set out to fill a perceive

[Development] QTBUG-43096 - QML instantiation performance decadence

2018-05-25 Thread Uwe Rathmann
Hi all, this morning I got a notification about https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-43096 being closed. I guess many applications had been hit by this issue, but as I was related to the project that created this bug I would like to give my summary of what has happened since then: a) On the Qt

[Development] Qt 3D Studio 2.0 BETA 2 released

2018-05-25 Thread Pasi Keränen
Hi, We have released Qt 3D Studio 2.0 BETA2 today. It is available as both commercial and open sourceversions from online and offline installers. For instructions on how to get started and install everything correctly, see Laszlo’s excellent blog on the subject for BETA1 here: http://blog.qt.io