Linked by Andrew Youll on Sat 6th Aug 2005 08:30 UTC, submitted by tbutler
In a series of articles (part I, part II) during the month of July, OfB's Timothy R. Butler explained why he felt that KDE needed to move beyond the Qt toolkit it uses as a foundation. In that series, he asserted that the licensing of Qt is becoming a stumbling block to the desktop's adoption. Eric Laffoon, the project lead for KDE's Kdewebdev module, takes exception to Butler's arguments and makes the case for his view on the issue of Qt at OfB.biz.
Thread beginning with comment 14711
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-06
"""P.S. Sorry for the vulgar language. This comparison of a world-class development toolset to Qt was just too much for my delicate sensibilities to handle."""
You should perhaps get your fact rght before launching a full scale invasion...
I just hate to see the work of all the fine people at Borland compared to something that I have used, Qt, and know is a steaming pile of crap compared to Delphi. Ooops. Vulgar language again. Rephrase. "Qt is primitive and dysfunctional compared to Delphi".
Architect is actually $3,347.77 for the full license. It seams that it is in promotion these days.
The price is still comparable to a single platform of Qt. I think you can find it for the ~$3000 price I mentioned in my link if you shop around a bit. For Qt, there is no shopping around.
From the Qt4 page : """The elegant Qt API includes a mature object model, a rich set of collection classes, and functionality for GUI programming, layout, database programming, networking, XML, internationalization, OpenGL integration and much more."""
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/index.html
Yes, Qt includes C++ classes for the functionality you mention. But what you get with Borland's tools is much broader and deeper. It is mature code that has been used in thousands of applications. Qt's code is not mature compared to Delphi. And a good chunk of Delphi functionality is visually integrated and has graphical tools. There is nothing like that for the Qt C++ class libraries.
Clearly it's more than just a GUI framework. Or I am probably under some sort of delusion and only think having written networked apps in it.
It is a graphics + a set of general purpose C++ classes. I have used it and written a number of apps with Qt. I am not trying to diminish it beyond what it actually is.
Ok, I admit freely that there is more tools into Delphi Architect that are not in Qt. But as a framwork, a cross platform framework, I think it does its job properly.
Agreed. Qt is a good cross-platform C++ class library. If you must do cross-platform C++, then Qt is not a bad choice provided you can afford it (commercial) or don't mind using fucked up tools on Windows (GPL version).
As the GPL flamewar go, I really think this is better that having a toned-down proprietary IDE like some from Borland. Anyway : i do not want to buy Visual Studio for writting free apps, it does not make sense
For writing any sorts of free apps on Windows, you will be far better off with the $105-$120 Visual Studio C++, C# or VB. This gives you a world class development tool that does not make you use the low quality Ming/GCC/GPL tools for Windows.
I make this recommendation if your goal as a developer is to produce good software vs. practice the GPL religion without making good software.
Ultimately it is up to each developer what is important. I am not a fan of the GPL except for taxpayer funded code that the public should own. For individual enterprise, I believe you should use the best tools to do a good job and that your IP belongs to you. If you choose to give it away, you can do so on your own terms, not some vendor's.