![]()
Some might say WX but it's got even more serious problems. The kind of thing I want to do there is basic, everyday C development made next to impossible by the Qt moc.which itself is entirely unnecessary now days, if it ever actually was.įrankly though, I'm stuck with it because if you want to do automated UI testing, Qt is pretty much the only game in town short of MFC.which is so 1980 (it sucks working in that shit really hard). I actually spent a lot of time and effort researching and devising a way to gain type safety back and connect a Qt signal to any functor object: People used to Java or Python style programming probably fair better actually. That, mixed with the fact that everything that responds to a signal has to be a Q_OBJECT, makes Qt hard to work in for a C programmer. You can't do this: #define CREATE_WIDGET(name,type) \ It also doesn't play well with the preprocessor. Of all the things I don't like about Qt, the fact that it doesn't play well with templates bugs me the most. It produces extremely large compiled binaries when compared with similarly written "plain old native applications" (excepting of course applications written for KDE).Parts are mostly licensed under the LGPL, which makes it difficult to use single-binary-deployment when one needs to release under a more restrictive or less restrictive license.This can make setting up a build environment much more tedious. Qt is a large amount of source, which must be present and preinstalled on any machine you use before compiling.This almost forces use of QtCreator or a textual only editor like vim. As a result of (2), C IDEs and tools can flag Qt expressions as errors, because they do not understand Qt's specifics.The build system being used requires the translation of certain files into extra source files, which makes the build process much more complicated when compared with most other libraries. Qt is not just a link-able set of C libraries.Just because you can write one UI for every platform does not mean that you should for most applications. #APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT WITH QT CREATOR 2ND EDITION WINDOWS#On Windows machines, split bars are typically narrow, and buttons are more textual, with more square designs. #APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT WITH QT CREATOR 2ND EDITION MAC#For example, on Mac machines, split bars are usually relatively thick, and buttons are small and rounded with icons. Designing a single UI for all platforms inherently is not going to look right when moved from machine to machine, for various visual styling reasons. In some cases, it just doesn't look like native programs look.There are plenty of good things to say about it - namely that the API works most of the time, and that it does seamlessly bridge platforms. I don't really intend this to be a bashing answer, but these are the reasons I do not personally use Qt. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |