Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Qt is devil's spawn.

I love the current Hildon/GTK+/GNOME/Freedesktop/etc. state of affairs and mourn on Qt killing this great platform.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

It's C++ based. This alone brings problems.
http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html

If that wasn't enough Qt introduced:
- own extension set to the C++ language implemented with custom preprocessor
- own template and library incompatible with C++ standard libraries

This creates closed ecosystem, dependent on Trolltech (now Nokia subcompany).


If having MeeGo Market means selling Free Software freedom for Qt, I won't go that way.

Cocoa, Dalvik, Qt - same crap, designed to tie developers to the chosen platform.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

But you know that Qt is available under GPL / LGPL ...
Seems like you smoked the false stuff before posting this post. Just sounds like a GTK-Fanboy flame.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Which one? Windows? Linux? xBSD? Is GTK more "multiplatform"?

I know software written with "good" C which looks like i was written in PHP. C++ is not bad language, neither is C. (PHP is).

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Like licensing did matter.

Freedesktop is run by a board and introduces its plans openly in advance. GNOME has clear open milestones decided in advance.

One company holding the code could:
- keep you with an unknown release date of the next bugfix release
- join forces with another big company and totally change direction leaving the community behind
- more?

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Portability is a myth. (and nice buzz-word for marketoids)

You have two options using "portable" libraries:
1. Use platform specific features - thus rendering your application unportable
2. Use lowest common denominator - which prevents you from creating truly awesome apps

P.S. I've been working on Psi Jabber Client which tried the third way and wanted to reimplement platform specific features for every platform. Foreseeable - it failed miserably.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

So write stuff for Hildon. Your problem is?...

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

I find your lack of faith disturbing...

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Welcome to 1995 boys and girls, when nobody doesn't know what oop means.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

So what are you suggesting?

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

I don't disagree, but this is really old news and done to death in another thread. At least MeeGo will officially support both Qt and GTK+/Clutter.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

I don't get this thread at all...

Whats the problem?

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

GObject introduces oop. Please use facts ;)

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Please don't make me laugh. GObject is like a punch in the eye. It forces oop into C where it does not belong.

P.S. I wait for this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Syntax does not OOP make ;) You can always use Vala instead and get (mostly) the same effect.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

C++0x == "The end of us all".

Lot of "modern" coders should attend classes of "old school" programming before learning oop anyway.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

How well supported will it be, however? "[...]Included for application compatibility" doesn't really sound "supported".

I don't dislike Qt itself nor the applications written utilizing it, but I fail to see how it's "easier" (except for, what I can tell from my limited knowledge, making custom GUIs).

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Vala introduces yet another layer (valac) and needs bindings in a special format (vapi). Why should i shoot myself in the foot?

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Try QT creator or Kdevelop and you'll see :)

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Let's see... and what does MOC & qmake do? ;)

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

It's MOC, not MUC. And QMake is just a build system, you aren't forced to use it.

If you want to know what it does, I'd suggest looking at the documentation for it.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

It's moc :P

anyway i was talking about C++. First time i saw moc i also went "wtf?" but it is useful to enforce signals in C++/Qt. The rest is real C++ flat code. you can #include whatever lib you want along QT.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Say yes to Qt! ;-) Looks like Gtk stays as community supported so where's the problem? Yes, Qt somehow rapes clean C++ (but for example - Qt templates are better than STL), same as GLib rapes C...

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Like everything else in the world, a degree of it is subjective. The things I most appreciate is that it requires less typing (and no use of things like class generators and other things) to do the same things using GObject/etc. I also appreciate the QPainter API, the fact that everything is wrappered in a nice, fairly consistent manner, and API which isn't cross-platform is clearly marked as such (e.g. QMaemo5 classes).

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Just write your code in a modular manner or use oop or whatever you young kids call it.

I usually write my software is in at least 2 seperate entites - backend for logic and functionality and then use GUI of choice for frontend. If you have to use a gui toolkit you just need to implement the "presentation" bit.

This idea of GTK=bad, QT = Good or QT=bad and GTK=good is a pointless argument.
Anyway GTK is still supported (as legacy) in maemo.

You have 2 options now and more rootfs bloat too.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Well, at least it'll be there out of the box (as opposed to "community-supported") and people will be able to file bugs against it etc. It's interesting to note that the open source part of Intel borged OpenedHand (the people who wrote Clutter, Matchbox and a whole bunch of other GTK+/GNOME-related stuff) a while ago so it seems that both the skills and will are there.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

As an Ubuntu user, I don't have a problem with Qt. It won't diminish what Gtk does but rather add to it. I run several Qt apps on my Linux desktop without any problem (Skype, VLC, VirtualBox, Google Earth). Besides, Qt is GPL. This story is FUD

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Full disclosure: I'm a Qt developer both as a hobby, and for my work

FWIW, this thread did make me think a bit, apparant closed-mindedness of some of the participants aside, it's been a fairly interesting discussion, and some interesting points have been raised I think.

When considering the openness of Qt, it's worth keeping in mind the KDE community has influence there in that it's probably one of the largest group of Qt developers in existance, and Qt itself is LGPL'd.

(This is also entirely discounting the fledgling but undoubtedly soon-to-grow MeeGo/other mobile OS community around Qt)

That is, if there was some kind of a sinister plot to take Qt in directions that the community wasn't happy with, I think the community would soon take things their own direction again. Obviously, this isn't something that the controlling company would be looking to start, so I don't see this as too high a risk.

It's also worth reflecting on the decisions Nokia has been making on behalf of Qt (and other projects, such as MeeGo) so far. You're considering them a sinister overlord, but as far as I can tell, their actions have been benevolent at best, and a bit misguided at worst when they have made genuinely bad decisions (like the DUI/Orbit/Qt confusion).

There are other technical aspects of some of the posts here that I don't think are quite on for similar reasons, like "moc being a tie-in to Qt" which is just stupid - obviously, if you use a platform, you're tied to it - try using a Gtk+ app without using Gtk+.

I could go on, but I think I've written enough for now.

At the end of the day, if you're not happy with the situation as it is, get involved. Help develop Qt, help shape the tools, help make things happen - don't sit in an armchair and paint the bikeshed.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

It could be worse it could be "emacs vs vi"!
or "Linux vs Gnu/Linux"
or " \" vs "/"
or "Google vs Bing"
or "C# vs Java"
or "Muhammad Ali vs Bruce Lee"
or "Star Wars vs Star Trek"
ad nauseum

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

That's basically what it is, at the end of the day. This is an open ecosystem, use the tools you want to use. You're not being forced into anything.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Let me introduce you the 2k+ programming: http://live.gnome.org/Vala

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

This, I think, is what many of us want to do, but are afraid that we won't be able to "shape the tools" let alone "make things happen."

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Typo.
Also, i know what they do. I code qt and have nothing against that. Just pointed out that admiral is ok to accept them, while claiming other tools and layers of abstraction are bad at the same time (because they exist, not based on what they achieve)
C++ also started as a c++ -> c compiler in some implementations..

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Have you actually tried? I've now gotten three patches into Qt the past month, two via talking to Qt developers about my concerns, one via submitting a merge request on Gitorious.

Visit #qt-labs on freenode sometime. They don't bite.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Try doing that with the Linux kernel developers!

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Jokes aside, I'm sure it's quite possible to work with them, if you know what you're doing, and more importantly, you're willing to work to a high standard.

A lot of the time, the second point isn't something that people realise. They do something to add/change a pet point of theirs, which is great (scratch the itch and all), but to make that palatable to other people, you need to understand that your itch needs to apply to everyone else, too.

An example from my own personal experience was many years ago when I wanted a patch to fix an issue I encountered with an IRC client. I sent it in, and it didn't make it in. I realise (with hindsight) that my solution fixed *my* case but broke other cases, and that's why it wasn't acceptable.

Not everyone has standards that are that high, but to be honest, for something as critical as the library so much software is developed on (Qt) or something like the kernel which is even more mission critical, I'm willing to accept that there *will* be a few hoops to jump through if I want to get my itch scratched.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

The QT discussion is small compared with the RPM.. For me i was a bit sad to hear QT was coming as i dislike KDE.. but can live with it. I am not a developer and the discussions about this have been very educational. This is just programs though.. I can choose to run QT apps or not.

My fear are the switch from Debian to the Moblin way of doing.. It might not be a hugh thing (i hope so).. but here is where i draw the line. I am a debian fanboy and will stay like that. I will never follow on to the rpm way of doing.. i did rpm before and it made me sick. Great we have the Moebian project.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

another gnome only ****? I hate gnome for their support of mono, that's enough for me.

Re: Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo!
 

Don't let KDE cloud your judgement on QT.
They just so happen to use QT as the underlying library.