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 289364
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Unconvinced
by mikeurbandz on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:41 UTC 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[7]: Unconvinced
by mikeurbandz on Fri 7th Dec 2007 19:06 in reply to "RE[6]: Unconvinced"
mikeurbandz Member since:
2007-10-29

> And your evidence for this is?

Large companies where I am familiar with their tools.

> As an independent developer doing custom
> software development for niche markets, Qt is
> well worth the money.

Well, I'm in the same situation you are. I do software development for niche markets. And I don't consider Qt to be worth the money.

> Qt license cost me just over 1100..

Per developer. And for a single platform license though right? The cross platform (*nix / Windows / Mac) license is normally $6,600. And I am sure Trolltech didn't give you an 84% small business discount.

I have to develop for all three major platforms cause my software runs in mixed environments. And even with a small business discount, it would most likely still be over $4,000 per developer. That is not affordable. Not when there are very good tools out there that don't cost anything.

Btw, license renewals and upgrades even for small businesses do not get a discount. So you only get to use that discount once. After that, you pay full price. So still not an acceptable option.

Edited 2007-12-07 19:17

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

RE[7]: Unconvinced
by mikeurbandz on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:49 in reply to "RE[6]: Unconvinced"
mikeurbandz Member since:
2007-10-29

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

On the contrary, I know quite a bit about ISVs. And those source control tools are being sold to enterprises. NOT to small independent ISVs.

It's quite clear though you know nothing about Java and Swing. Since all three of the points you said it cannot do in your previous post, it can in fact do. And it can do it relatively easily. And on a cross platform basis.

Reply Parent Score: 1