Notices


Reply
Thread Tools
w00t's Avatar
Posts: 1,055 | Thanked: 4,106 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Norway
#11
Originally Posted by mick3_de View Post
I still don't understand why I can use the latest Qt version with (Desktop) Linux, Windows (Phone), Mac, Android and even on Raspberry Pi but not on Jolla?
I think I already covered this a few posts above you. It's not a trivial effort like you seem to assume it is, and the effort going onto that is effort that isn't spent elsewhere (other useful bugfixes/features, tablet work, etc)

Originally Posted by mick3_de View Post
Hope that SFOS 2.0 has some more recent update.
It doesn't. You can watch the activity yourself on http://github.com/mer-qt/.
__________________
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to w00t For This Useful Post:
Copernicus's Avatar
Posts: 1,987 | Thanked: 7,692 times | Joined on Dec 2010 @ Dayton, Ohio
#12
Originally Posted by mick3_de View Post
I still don't understand why I can use the latest Qt version with (Desktop) Linux, Windows (Phone), Mac, Android and even on Raspberry Pi but not on Jolla?
When you say you can "use" the latest Qt with all these operating systems, I believe what you mean is that you can run programs written using Qt on those systems. Other than desktop Linux, none of those OSs actually use Qt internally for anything (and only some distributions of Linux use Qt).

I would guess that, if you really wanted to, you could build an executable on Qt 5.5 and run it on a Jolla; you simply wouldn't be able to take advantage of Sailfish's GUI. You'd need to include your own UI graphics libraries into your app, much the way Qt works on Android. (Gah, I really, really hate the way Qt works on Android; I've been pulling my hair out trying to create a UI for my apps that looks at all reasonable. Creating a reasonable UI using Sailfish is so much easier...)
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post:
Posts: 163 | Thanked: 619 times | Joined on Oct 2012
#13
Originally Posted by mick3_de View Post
Qt 5.5 just got released:

http://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/07/01/qt-5-5-released/

I still don't understand why I can use the latest Qt version with (Desktop) Linux, Windows (Phone), Mac, Android and even on Raspberry Pi but not on Jolla?

Hope that SFOS 2.0 has some more recent update.
You can! All you need is somebody who'll package a new version of Qt for SFOS, which should be installed "beside" SFOS main Qt version. (Windows phone & Android doesn't provide Qt themselves, so there is no reason that we expect Jolla to provide this).

Being able to install latest Qt version on Jolla is completely different from the Qt version used by SFOS.
__________________
My N9 apps: MeeTeleGram, Dukto, Prayers, Saaghar, N9 Easy Boot
Donations are appreciated
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hedayat For This Useful Post:
Posts: 66 | Thanked: 87 times | Joined on Aug 2010
#14
Originally Posted by m4r0v3r View Post
I assume because the Jolla it limited by its hardware and it has to be ensured that Qt 5.5 won't bring any determinal performance issues, since on PCs its not as much of an issue, and Android Qt isnt the primary toolkit,
True, but isn't actually the point of newer Qt point releases also to bring performance improvements and lot's of bug fixes?

while for Jolla the UX is built on Qt,
Don't you see the irony that a device what is build on the premise of Qt lags the newest improvements of the toolkit compared to all other platforms?

also what APIs does it bring that you want?
I think it would be really great to have an updated Qt WebKit or even the new Qt WebEngine module. All apps rendering web content including 3rd party web browsers would greatly benefit from it. Also Jolla could switch finally to GStreamer 1.x with Qt Multimedia. Besides this the SFOS SDK could use a newer version of Qt Creator for development.

Qt 5.2 still used in the latest SFOS came out the same time as the Jolla phone in December 2013. Don't you think it's time for an update at least for SFOS 2?
 
Posts: 66 | Thanked: 87 times | Joined on Aug 2010
#15
Originally Posted by w00t View Post
I think I already covered this a few posts above you. It's not a trivial effort like you seem to assume it is,
I never assumed that's a trivial effort.

and the effort going onto that is effort that isn't spent elsewhere (other useful bugfixes/features, tablet work, etc)
But keeping a fork of a specific version longer gets more expensive over time. If the 5.1->.2 update was already that painful I wonder how difficult a higher update will be?

It doesn't. You can watch the activity yourself on http://github.com/mer-qt/.
Ok, I see it's still based on the Qt 5.2.x migration work last year.
 
Copernicus's Avatar
Posts: 1,987 | Thanked: 7,692 times | Joined on Dec 2010 @ Dayton, Ohio
#16
Originally Posted by mick3_de View Post
True, but isn't actually the point of newer Qt point releases also to bring performance improvements and lot's of bug fixes?
Actually, that's a pretty good question. Many organizations do maintain the policy of limiting "minor" releases to just performance and fixing bugs, but this doesn't apply to everybody. Certainly, Qt has added and removed features whenever they wanted; heck, QML itself was introduced in Qt 4.7.

In short, the numeric value of a Qt release isn't a good indicator of just how much Qt has changed in that release.

Don't you see the irony that a device what is build on the premise of Qt lags the newest improvements of the toolkit compared to all other platforms?
The fundamental premise of Qt is ease of cross-platform app creation. I don't see how that should make updating an operating system any easier...

Moreover, Jolla is selling itself on having a superior mobile device user experience on top of a (mostly) open operating system. This really has nothing to do with what version of Qt they use; their selling point could still stand, even if they moved away from Qt altogether.

I think it would be really great to have an updated Qt WebKit or even the new Qt WebEngine module. All apps rendering web content including 3rd party web browsers would greatly benefit from it. Also Jolla could switch finally to GStreamer 1.x with Qt Multimedia. Besides this the SFOS SDK could use a newer version of Qt Creator for development.
The way Qt has messed around with their web client software is far, far more than just a simple performance enhancement, and requires at least a little amount of effort to properly adjust to. Similarly, GStreamer 1.x has some interesting differences over 0.10. And I don't see any significant value in having the latest version of Qt Creator; I'm currently using Qt Creator 2.4.1 (SDK 4.7) for Maemo work, Qt Creator 3.1.2 (SDK 5.2) for Sailfish work, and Qt Creator 3.3.0 (SDK 5.4) for Android work. They're all pretty much identical in terms of how they work, other than that they all support some radically different Qt features.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post:
Posts: 332 | Thanked: 1,751 times | Joined on Jul 2014
#17
Originally Posted by mick3_de View Post
But keeping a fork of a specific version longer gets more expensive over time. If the 5.1->.2 update was already that painful I wonder how difficult a higher update will be?
The general process the Jolla guys work with is to get their changes upstreamed to the latest Qt and then back-port them to Qt5.2 for use on the Jolla. This is initially more work but it means that the two branches are converging not diverging.

GStreamer 1.0 is a prime example of this, its currently in testing for the next release (fingers crossed)
__________________
SirenSong v0.5
Like my work? buy me a beer
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to r0kk3rz For This Useful Post:
Posts: 301 | Thanked: 1,388 times | Joined on Oct 2013 @ France
#18
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
The fundamental premise of Qt is ease of cross-platform app creation. I don't see how that should make updating an operating system any easier...
Yes, but fragmentation goes against cross-platform.
We are starting to see the same problems with Qt, than with other eco-systems (like Android) : the more different Qt versions there are in the field, the more difficult it gets to make cross-platform things, except if using only the lowest common denominator.

Someone who starts to write an application today, will use Qt5.5 on desktop, but would not be able to directly use canvas3D/qt3D/QtLocation/Bluetooth4LE on Ubuntu touch, and a lot less in Qt5.2 on Jolla.

That is what is bad in this situation. On the other hand, not spending all their time to try to follow closely each release of Qt is legit.

About fragmentation, Silica also doesn't help as it can't run on anything else than Sailfish itself. But it looks great
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zeta For This Useful Post:
Posts: 301 | Thanked: 1,388 times | Joined on Oct 2013 @ France
#19
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
And I don't see any significant value in having the latest version of Qt Creator; I'm currently using Qt Creator 2.4.1 (SDK 4.7) for Maemo work, Qt Creator 3.1.2 (SDK 5.2) for Sailfish work, and Qt Creator 3.3.0 (SDK 5.4) for Android work. They're all pretty much identical in terms of how they work, other than that they all support some radically different Qt features.
The general behavior has been kept the same, but it is getting a lot more efficient when using refactoring tools in the last versions. Kits and devices has also seen a major overhaul since 2.4.
And QtCreator is not tied to a specific version of the Qt toolchain, it is only an IDE. I always use the last QtCreator version for all my toolchains (Qt4.x and Qt5.x), I even develop with it for embedded devices with no OS and no Qt.
So Jolla can update their SDK without changing the Qt version running on their OS, if they'd see the need.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Zeta For This Useful Post:
Copernicus's Avatar
Posts: 1,987 | Thanked: 7,692 times | Joined on Dec 2010 @ Dayton, Ohio
#20
Originally Posted by Zeta View Post
Yes, but fragmentation goes against cross-platform.
You're telling me! I've given up on trying to create a single unified UI for my own apps, which is why I've got a different version of the Qt SDK up and running for each of the devices I'm targeting.

However, I have to admit that the non-GUI parts of Qt really do work as advertised. I was able to get the back-end of my Pierogi app up and running on Android in just a couple of days, and was using it to control TVs and other devices. I just recently threw Linguine at Qt on Android, and was quickly pulling down podcasts with it as well. It's just that I can't possibly use the same Qt GUI for both Maemo and Android.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:06.