On quarta-feira, 16 de maio de 2012 13.24.25, Atlant Schmidt wrote: > The FOSS developers HOPE that their interests are congruent > with those of the mere customers and at least in QT's world, > there's some evidence that this is true for some customers > but there is also mounting evidence that this is decidedly > NOT TRUE for other customers, hence our current debate > about QML Qt versus QWidget Qt.
That's not exactly true. The debate isn't about QML vs QWidget. The core of
the debate, as far as I can see, is whether there should be a C++ interface
for making UIs with the new technology.
I haven't seen anyone support QWidget itself in this thread. Moreover, I doubt
most people know the challenges with enhancing QWidget further. Consider this:
the QWidget & QPainter imperative painting technology is Done. It's not a
matter of taste, it's fact: graphical technology has moved on.
Sure, there will still be some uses for QPainter, just as QWidget will remain
there for a few years to come. That's not the point.
But the point is that we need something new to take Qt forward and be the
basis for the next 5-10 years. The suggestion so far is QML & scene graph and
with a few tweaks it could be made to suit most people's requests.
No one has suggested an alternative.
So I suggest we spend our energy discussing those tweaks I mention, what's
necessary to make the technology more attractive to current developers, what
the impact on maintenance will be, etc.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
