#ifdefs don’t cut it. That was one of the reason Qt was born in the first place.

An example about the confusion stems from the many announced promising technologies which, to the developer, have time unclear future or internal relations. Whatever you do on Maemo 5 will look crappy (or out-of-place at best) on Harmattan, and there is already UI technology that points beyond Harmattan. You already have three (or four, if the reference UX counts) different ways of doing an UI without the necessary background knowledge or insight to make a stategic decision which one to use. And I haven’t even started talking about Symbian, which will certainly be a major factor in technology choices in any paid developer’s work. So no, it’s not really clear, partially due to the speed of technology development, but is worsened a lot by the incoherent naming strategy which will have to be corrected before any final release is made.

And a general comment - ’smartness’ of developers have nothing to do with it. That’s like saying Qt doesn’t need documentation - if you’re smart enough you’ll figure it out based on the source. The goal is to make the tools easily approachable and to minimize the learning curve and potential communicational errors later on. A clear structure (naming included) helps *everyone* interested in the platform.