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 289355
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Unconvinced
by sanctus on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:16 UTC 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