Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Jun 2007 20:30 UTC, submitted by Eskil A. Blomfeldt
Qt After several technical previews and betas, Trolltech has launched Qt Jambi (Qt for Java) as a product under a dual licensing model (commercial and GPL license). There are also some product information and demos, and downloads for open source versions.
Thread beginning with comment 245899
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Well, cool
by Moochman on Thu 7th Jun 2007 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Well, cool"
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for the clarification.

Since you seem to be so knowledgeable, perhaps you could answer another question: Do regular (C++, native-compiled) Qt apps also need Qt installed on the (Windows/Mac) end user's system?

Also, as someone else asked, what advantages might Qt Jambi bring to the average Java developer over Swing and SWT?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Well, cool
by eskil on Thu 7th Jun 2007 15:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Well, cool"
eskil Member since:
2007-06-07

Do regular (C++, native-compiled) Qt apps also need Qt installed on the (Windows/Mac) end user's system?

No, neither Qt nor Qt Jambi requires this. Native libraries are usually bundled with the application, whether it's a Java application or a native application.

Also, as someone else asked, what advantages might Qt Jambi bring to the average Java developer over Swing and SWT?

Main points would be:
1. An API which we believe to be more intuitive, easy to learn, easy to read, with reasonable default behavior, and just plain more pleasant to use. This should be a big deal for people who do application development, as it allows them to focus on the tasks of their particular application, and not on battling the API they are using to develop it. In our experience, the alternatives out there have usability issues that Qt Jambi does not suffer from.

2. Professional support.

3. The ability to easily combine native and Java-code using Qt and Qt Jambi side-by-side, and using the Qt Jambi Generator, which is part of the package.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Well, cool
by Moochman on Thu 7th Jun 2007 16:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Well, cool"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for the info. If you'll bear with me, I have yet another couple of questions ;) :

Native libraries are usually bundled with the application, whether it's a Java application or a native application.

Okay, so in the case of a Mac app I'd guess that the native libraries are bundled in the program's app-folder, and in the case of Windows they're bundled in an installation program?

The ability to easily combine native and Java-code using Qt and Qt Jambi side-by-side, and using the Qt Jambi Generator, which is part of the package.

That is cool. So if I understand correctly, the Generator (which sounds quite amazing by the way) is capable of letting you use C++ libraries in a Java project and compiling the thing to Java bytecode. But to avoid confusion, Qt Jambi does not work the other way around; i.e. you can't integrate Java code into existing Qt projects and compile it all to a native platform, right?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Well, cool
by anda_skoa on Thu 7th Jun 2007 15:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Well, cool"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Do regular (C++, native-compiled) Qt apps also need Qt installed on the (Windows/Mac) end user's system?


Yes, the libraries need to be present at application runtime, so they can either be installed separately or come bundled with the applications.

On Windows and Mac OSX the second option is usually preferred, though, similar to the Java Runtime Environment, it would be possible to install it only once into a system directory.

Also, as someone else asked, what advantages might Qt Jambi bring to the average Java developer over Swing and SWT?


I am not sure this is the most usueful angle to look at it. I think the main question is: what advantages might Qt Jambi bring to the average Qt developer over C++

Examples would be:
- crossplatform IDE support through the Eclipse plugin

- huge number of Java utility libraries

- comparably trivial plugin handling (Class.forName vs. C based dlopen/dlsym)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Well, cool
by Moochman on Thu 7th Jun 2007 16:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Well, cool"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not sure this is the most usueful angle to look at it. I think the main question is: what advantages might Qt Jambi bring to the average Qt developer over C++

You're right, that is the angle I expect most people to look at it from. I just asked the question since I figured it was worth asking ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 2