Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Jan 2013 19:05 UTC
Permalink for comment 547019
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-29
QML to me had very elementary limitations that showed that it hasn't been put through its paces. Things that I've taken for granted in XAML are not present in QML.
For example QML has states, but no concept of state groups, so its impossible to have states which are not mutually exclusive co-exist within a view.
That, and I think a lot of the C++ and JS and even the Signal and Slot integration is pretty clumsy.
XAML falls on its face in a few regards here too, but XAML has well developed frameworks to show people how to use it the right way.
Not saying that QML is fundamentally bad, it is the best thing to happen to Linux, I just don't know if its ready for prime time yet.
I do love the JSON-ish syntax over XML. XAML is way too verbose.
But I completely disagree with the Qt part. Qt is one of the best and most mature UI frameworks available right now (IMHO next to Java Swing). Qt is by far the best C++ UI framework (more powerful, easier to learn and portable than, say, MFC, WTL, wxWidgets or the old VCL) and the best portable UI framework.
I can concede that, I'm sure you have more experience with it than me.