+1 N. Il giorno 24/apr/2014, alle ore 21:15, Attila Csipa <q...@csipa.in.rs> ha scritto:
> It's a bit tricky. Traditionally, Qt did UIs by mimicking/drawing the UI > elements itself. This is cool, as it's allows for those native looking, > but also super-customizable (and quite fast) UIs. Or, rather, this used > to be cool. It's still VERY good for embedded and custom UIs requiring > that pixel perfect snappy UI (also the reason why it fares so well in > the consultancy/solutions business). But. Unfortunately platforms have > diversified, UIs look/act more different than ever (and it's not going > to change). This is, indirectly, IMO the reason why Qt Quick Components > took so long, why they (pardon my French) suck, and why they will suck > in the foreseeable future, and why I think Qt is (still) so far behind > in mobile. It seems nobody has the bandwidth to reimplement ALL the > controls/look'n'feel for ALL the platforms, so they would feel native > and integrate with the Qt apps seamlessly. This would be OK if Qt was a > game engine or not trying to have a general application framework > appeal. The current mobile examples demonstrate IMHO this quite clearly > - they do have a "I want this" appeal on a first run, but when you > scratch the surface you see these are more like Potemkin villages than > solutions to cross platform mobile development :( After playing a bit > with Xamarin (yes, I know, but put aside the C# hate for a minute), it's > quite striking what different approaches can result in (and it also made > it quite clear what Qt is doing better - but also worse than other cross > platform solutions). > > Best regards, > Attila
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
