Hi all, my personal things: Welcome to the era of stagnation and dinosaurs. The new "revolutioning" Qt6 will be released semi-dead. It will be overgrowned with mold, moss and fungi in the form of CMake. This will not be a new life, but it will be an attempt to prolong the convulsions.
A real new life could give the QBS, that pushed be a new branch of the spiral of development. It would stimulate be the QBS integration with others IDE and etc. PS: I don't know, what is it: or an "effective management" or an "evil intent" or an "CMake lobby", or "not enough money". Perhaps the thesis that "Millions of flies cannot be mistaken when they choose shit" works here. Anyway, RIP QBS, You were a great friend, I never forget you. I drink Vodka and grieve about the innocently murdered projects for the sake of conjuncture. == R I P, QBS == IMHO, :( вт, 30 окт. 2018 г. в 12:08, Richard Weickelt <rich...@weickelt.de>: > > > Qbs is something that has been developed almost exclusively by The Qt > > Company. As such, TQtC had to also look at it from a business perspective > > and how it fits into the larger picture of making Qt successful. To make > > a long story short, while Qbs is pretty cool and interesting technology, > > it doesn’t really help us expand the Qt ecosystem and usage. > > Qbs has made the development of multi-platform applications with multiple > libraries a breeze for me. Even projects that contain firmware for > different > target architectures in addition to a Qt application are no problem at all > with Qbs. Thanks to Qbs, I can focus on code and not on the build system. I > achieve more in less time. > > I always thought that Qbs was a great example for using QML. > > > To make Qbs really successful would require a rather large effort and > > investment in promoting it towards the larger C++ ecosystem as a new > > build tool. At the same time it has to be an open source product to stand > > any chance in the market. Together this makes it challenging for TQtC to > > see how to recover that investment. Thus this investment would be at the > > expense of other things we’d like to do, like improving our IDE, working > > on rearchitecting and cleaning up our core frameworks for Qt 6 or the > > design tooling we are currently investing into. The Qt Company believes > > that those other investments are more important for the future of Qt than > > our choice of build tool. > > It seems that Qbs never got much traction within the Qt Company either. > Outside the regular blog posts, I don't see any attempt to promote Qbs > anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong. I may have noticed that Jake Petroules > did his best to get the word out, but I guess that was his private mission > rather than his official role in the Qt Company. What I can't complain > about > is the unprecedented dedication and professionalism of Christian, Jörg and > Jake on this project. Also all support questions were answered in lightning > speed. > > > As such, we were left with the question on whether we need Qbs as the > > build system for Qt 6 or whether cmake (as the other alternative) would > > be up to the task. > > [..] > > Given that we are confident we can build Qt 6 with cmake, I believe that > > it makes most sense to follow down that route. In case you’re interested, > > you can have a look at the cmake prototype code for qtbase on Gerrit in > > the wip/cmake branch. Please also let us know if you’re interested in > > helping with the effort of porting Qt’s build system over to cmake. > > > > We have been developing Qbs over the last years, and as such are > > committed to it for some more time. We are planning on another feature > > release in the first quarter of next year and will support it in Qt > > Creator for at least another year. Qbs is open source and if someone > > wants to take over and develop it further let us know as well. I’d also > > like to use this place to thank Christian and Jörg for all their great > > work on Qbs (and of course also anybody else who contributed to it). > > How can we leverage from the next half year to smoothly turn Qbs into a > community-owned OS project? Does anybody know a positive role-model for > this? > > I don't want to miss out on the productivity gains I've made with Qbs, but > on the other hand I have very little free time. However, I would > voluntarily > contribute to the documentation of Qbs. > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
