Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 7th Dec 2007 06:25 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Qt Jambi ships as a single Java library, or JAR (Java Archive) file, plus a handful of tools, including an interface layout and design tool, and an Eclipse plug-in. Trolltech uses its vaunted Qt C++ library as the GUI engine and puts Java wrappers around it. This approach uses the JNI (Java Native Interface) to call the necessary functions from Java. More here.
Thread beginning with comment 289346
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Unconvinced
by elsewhere on Fri 7th Dec 2007 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unconvinced"
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

Also being free has definitely helped Gtk in general. It's the main reason why all the commercial *nix vendors threw their support behind GNOME instead of KDE. None of them wanted to lock their commercial partners into paying huge licensing fees for Qt.


So that explains the thriving market for commercial gtk-based applications, I guess.

RH, Novell and Sun each had strategic business reasons behind selecting gtk, it has nothing to do with license pricing. Particularly considering that these are businesses that rely on providing high-value in order to generate support revenue from customers for a product they could otherwise get for gratis, it's a little bit galling to suggest that they believe Qt isn't viable under what is basically the same model.

At the end of the day, businesses have no issue paying for tools if they can be shown to make them more efficient. Price is only a single factor in the value equation, and if the cases of commercial organizations, it is often one of the least important ones.

If Qt with support from Trolltech can make a developer more efficient and cut down code development time, the company will see near immediate ROI. The equation can change dramatically in Qt's favor when considering the cross-platform development capabilities, as well. That's how they'll make their decisions.

I will admit, though, that Gtk has an important role to play as a viable alternative to Qt, if only to offer choice.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Unconvinced
by sanctus on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Unconvinced"
sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

If Qt with support from Trolltech can make a developer more efficient and cut down code development time, the company will see near immediate ROI. The equation can change dramatically in Qt's favor when considering the cross-platform development capabilities, as well. That's how they'll make their decisions.


Thats make perfect sense, as long as you're in the field of building cross platform application.

But if you're a OS/desktop maker, you want to give your customer a way to build application without any restriction to your target user/developper - Open or commercial. If you use QT, you're somehow telling your customer: "well you paid for our product, but if you want to build closed source app, you must also pay XXXX$ to company Y". Even if it has many advantage (ROI), it will be unwelcome by customer.

The way Trolltech business is, make them perpetual second alternative.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Unconvinced
by leos on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:45 in reply to "RE[5]: Unconvinced"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

The way Trolltech business is, make them perpetual second alternative.


You're probably right. I suppose that Trolltech thought about this and figured they would rather be the second alternative and sell their product to be quite profitable, than be the standard (which they could be if Qt was BSD licensed or some such) and make less money (and thus have less money to put into development of the toolkit).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Unconvinced
by segedunum on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:18 in reply to "RE[5]: Unconvinced"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

If you use QT, you're somehow telling your customer: "well you paid for our product, but if you want to build closed source app, you must also pay XXXX$ to company Y". Even if it has many advantage (ROI), it will be unwelcome by customer.

On the contrary, that is exactly what development companies want to hear. They want to see quality development tools and libraries so that they can make money. 'Free' development tools come an extremely distant second if no one wants to use them.

Let's put it this way: You either give them what they want to see or they will keep passing your platform by. If you have to sell licenses to fund and move your development platform, tools and desktop along, then so be it. The status quo of "You can develop everything for free!" cuts no ice in the real world.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Unconvinced
by anda_skoa on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:31 in reply to "RE[5]: Unconvinced"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

But if you're a OS/desktop maker, you want to give your customer a way to build application without any restriction to your target user/developper


This is true, but the other offerings limit the customer in doing multiple platforms with a single codebase.

It will depend on the product if doing a multi codebase development, probably with a different developer team for each platform will be more or less expensive than using a development framework that lets you do multiplatform with a single codebase and a single development team.

Unfortunately quite a lot of companies still do software development the 20th century way: separately for each platform.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Unconvinced
by mikeurbandz on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:41 in reply to "RE[4]: Unconvinced"
mikeurbandz Member since:
2007-10-29

> So that explains the thriving market for
> commercial gtk-based applications, I guess.

There isn't exactly a commercially thriving horizontal market for *nix applications in general. Almost all *nix software that isn't open source, is vertical market. And GTK does quite well there. (At least in the sectors of the vertical market that haven't been completely taken over by Java and .NET)

> At the end of the day, businesses have no issue
> paying for tools if they can be shown to make them
> more efficient.

Sure. As long as the prices for those tools are reasonable. For many ISVs, QT's prices are outrageously high.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Unconvinced
by leos on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:57 in reply to "RE[5]: Unconvinced"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Almost all *nix software that isn't open source, is vertical market. And GTK does quite well there.


And your evidence for this is? I have no evidence either, aside from my own personal experience developing vertical market apps using Qt.

Sure. As long as the prices for those tools are reasonable. For many ISVs, QT's prices are outrageously high.


And you're basing this on what exactly? As an independent developer doing custom software development for niche markets, Qt is well worth the money. First of all, if you're bringing in less than 200k a year, you qualify for the small business discount, so my Qt license cost me just over 1100.. That's peanuts, even for me (and my software development is just a part time thing). Without Qt, I wouldn't even have a business, because my limited time would not allow me to write the apps that I do without excellent toolkit support. I've looked at a lot of toolkits, and none of them come close to the developer efficiency that I get with Qt.

So I can only speak for myself, but for me, Qt is allowing me to code reasonably complex applications in my spare time, without having to worry about crazy bugs in the underlying libraries. I've tried that with other toolkits, and it just doesn't work. GTKmm is not a serious option on Windows, and the last time I tried wxWidgets I found a bug in the libraries in the first day, not to mention the MFC style message maps that are really not pleasant to work with.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Unconvinced
by segedunum on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:45 in reply to "RE[5]: Unconvinced"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Sure. As long as the prices for those tools are reasonable. For many ISVs, QT's prices are outrageously high.

ISVs spend huge amounts of money on tools and software to support their business, which is creating software that they can sell. Tools are exceptionally important to ISVs, and you can see that from the size of the market. Yes we have Subversion, CVS and Git which are free, but even the source control software tools market runs into hundreds of millions, if not more.

If you believe the above then you know nothing about ISVs, and I say that in the politest manner possible.

Reply Parent Score: 4