>> On 10. Dec 2025, at 15:18, André Somers via Development >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> On 10/12/2025 14:44, Vladimir Minenko via Development wrote: >>> >>>> On 10. Dec 2025, at 14:08, André Somers via Development >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> So... QtBridges that don't expose qt, but only allow you to make something >>>> talking to QML. >>> >>> to Qt Quick via QML from my perspective and IMHO. >> Exactly. Just like the blog linked earlier says: " In this approach, code >> written in various languages serves as backend and implement business logic. >> The frontend is the UI code written in QML and using Qt Quick UI framework. " >>>> Does that mean your message is now that Qt is just QML, and the rest of it >>>> doesn't really matter? >>> >>> Not at all! Our message should be understood as: Qt is not only C++, QML >>> and Python (via bindngs like PySide). It is not only that, it is more. >>> >>> Long term, we would like to even find ways how bring languages and C++ >>> being even at the same time. So that Qt will be seen more and more as a >>> language-indepedent framework. >> I don't think I understand what you are trying to express here. >> What I get from the messages and other messaging so far is that the Qt >> Bridges will be about making QML available as a front-end language, as a way >> to specify UI for a series of other languages. It would allow you to >> interact with that code, export objects into the QML scope, that kind of >> thing right? That's a useful endeavor, I guess. What I am wondering is you >> choosing to to market that as a "Qt Bridge", while it seems the scope is way >> more limited than Qt in general. Hence me wondering if you regard the rest >> of Qt as not relevant any more. >>> Some day, we also want to find ways how to involve folks from >>> https://wiki.qt.io/Language_Bindings so that over time, it becomes a wider >>> effort and exploration >> ... in order to expose more of the Qt API's, or in order to expand the >> number of Qt Bridges you have? Are you designing the bridges with a mind to >> allow for that? >> Cheers, >> André > On 10 Dec 2025, at 16:08, Vladimir Minenko via Development > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hence me wondering if you regard the rest of Qt as not relevant any more. > > Definitely not at all! Anything else in Qt stays at least the same relevant. > We are not valuing anything with this. We want the whole value of “Qt” to > grow.
And it is indeed possible to do several things at the same time, such as a) make functionality we have in Qt, and that is missing from other language ecosystems, available to those We start with UI as the obvious functionality. We’ll see what else makes sense. and b) continue to be a comprehensive and consistent framework for C++ developers Other languages might have many of those (be it as part of the standard libraries, or through a functioning package ecosystem). Volker -- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
