Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo! - Page 11 - maemo.org

Joorin | # 101 | 2010-04-20, 17:28 | Report

Originally Posted by sevla View Post

I never said bling = progress. Improved user experience however does = progress. Object Oriented design = progress.

C has it's place in low level code but not in developing front end applications..

just my .02 cents.

fwiw I am a software developer at IBM and not some random wannabe techie blogger, trendy coffee shop goer.

My hunch is that what many call "improved user experience" (and I call bling) is bought with CPU cycles needed to keep ahead of other devices and with memory needed to actually give the end user a good experience.

Object oriented programming is a tool for modelling the problem domain. Its encapsulating properties are handy in many ways and it can be used to partition the code. Yes, most know this. But is it the best tool, in the shape of C++, for solving the problem of being the preferred toolkit on a device like the N900? My gut feeling is "Not all too sure.".

Why shouldn't C have a place in "front end applications"? If anything, this idea comes across as weird. But perhaps I'm just an old fart like the 3D designer some posts back assumes.

You being employed by IBM is good and all (I'm sure your eP3n1s is bigger than mine) but that's not an argument.

Bundyo | # 102 | 2010-04-20, 17:29 | Report

Originally Posted by admiral0 View Post

Try QT creator or Kdevelop and you'll see

Interface designer doesn't make you a programmer you know...

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bundyo For This Useful Post:
qwerty12, Venemo

sevla | # 103 | 2010-04-20, 17:48 | Report

Originally Posted by nicola.mfb View Post

Just for those that thinks qt is not easy, this is little tool that shows how to create a button that when clicked emit a signal on the session bus.

mywidget.h

Code:

#include <QWidget>
#include <QPushButton>
#include <QVBoxLayout>
#include <QDBusConnection>

class MyWidget : public QWidget
{
  Q_OBJECT
  public:
  MyWidget() : QWidget() {
    QDBusConnection::sessionBus().registerObject("/",this,QDBusConnection::ExportAllContents);
    new QVBoxLayout(this);
    QPushButton *b = new QPushButton("emit signal",this);
    layout()->addWidget(b);
    connect(b,SIGNAL(clicked()),SIGNAL(clicked()));
    show();
  }
  signals:
    void clicked();
};

.

Can also do it this way I think. Or use auto_ptr which does not need a "delete".

Code:

#include <QWidget>
#include <QPushButton>
#include <QVBoxLayout>
#include <QDBusConnection>

class MyWidget : public QWidget
{
  Q_OBJECT
  public:
  MyWidget() : QWidget(), m_b(QPushButton("emit signal", this)) {
    QDBusConnection::sessionBus().registerObject("/",this,QDBusConnection::ExportAllContents);
    new QVBoxLayout(this);
    layout()->addWidget(m_b);
    connect(m_b,SIGNAL(clicked()),SIGNAL(clicked()));
    show();
  }
  signals:
    void clicked();

private:
   QPushButton * m_b;
};

Last edited by sevla; 2010-04-20 at 17:51.

tomaszrybak | # 104 | 2010-04-20, 18:26 | Report

Originally Posted by smoku View Post

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.

But putting dependency on Mono might be one of the reasons that some companies might want to avoid introducing GNOME into their devices.

Patola | # 105 | 2010-04-20, 18:28 | Report

I followed the whole discussion and I think the real problem is:

Originally Posted by smoku View Post

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?

Nokia is doing that right now with the delay of PR1.2 and the Meego Consortium. How can we best avoid and work around these issues?

I am deeply disappointed with Nokia, btw. I once thought it understood open source/free software.

Texrat | # 106 | 2010-04-20, 18:32 | Report

Originally Posted by Patola View Post

I am deeply disappointed with Nokia, btw. I once thought it understood open source/free software.

Some individuals in the massive company do. They are working hard to spread the religion.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
OVK, Venemo

Kwljunky | # 107 | 2010-04-20, 18:40 | Report

So wait wait, let me get this straight, your complaining about QT which will make cross platform development, like porting symbian apps to meego and meego to symbian and to other platforms easier and less work, so we end up with a load of apps rather then a few... ???
It will make it look nicer rather then outdated when compared with other apps from other mobile platforms and they do compare them.

viraptor | # 108 | 2010-04-20, 19:03 | Report

Originally Posted by tomaszrybak View Post

But putting dependency on Mono might be one of the reasons that some companies might want to avoid introducing GNOME into their devices.

And more FUD. Gnome doesn't depend on Mono. Gnome includes some Mono-based applications by default. There is a difference.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to viraptor For This Useful Post:
Bundyo, qwerty12, Texrat, Venemo

sevla | # 109 | 2010-04-20, 19:32 | Report

Originally Posted by Joorin View Post

My hunch is that what many call "improved user experience" (and I call bling) is bought with CPU cycles needed to keep ahead of other devices and with memory needed to actually give the end user a good experience.

Object oriented programming is a tool for modelling the problem domain. Its encapsulating properties are handy in many ways and it can be used to partition the code. Yes, most know this. But is it the best tool, in the shape of C++, for solving the problem of being the preferred toolkit on a device like the N900? My gut feeling is "Not all too sure.".

Why shouldn't C have a place in "front end applications"? If anything, this idea comes across as weird. But perhaps I'm just an old fart like the 3D designer some posts back assumes.

You being employed by IBM is good and all (I'm sure your eP3n1s is bigger than mine) but that's not an argument.

I didn't mention my employment to reference anything to the size of my Electronic Penis. I was simply noting that my comments were based off experience and not random thoughts or ramblings..

Anyways I made my points. Both C and C++ have their strengths. In terms of the OP, I just don't get the big protest against Qt or C++ for that matter.

That is all.

nicola.mfb | # 110 | 2010-04-20, 19:35 | Report

Originally Posted by sevla View Post

Can also do it this way I think. Or use auto_ptr which does not need a "delete".

Hi sevla, as the button is a child of MyWidget, the MyWidget destructor will automagically delete it

Just another great feature of Qt

Regards

Niko

The Following User Says Thank You to nicola.mfb For This Useful Post:
sevla