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 289376
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Unconvinced
by leos on Fri 7th Dec 2007 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Unconvinced"
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

Per developer. And for a single platform license though right?


Correct. At the moment my contracts have been Windows only.

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.


65% actually.

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.


$2310 actually.

That is not affordable.


Well I don't know your financials, but if that is not affordable, your business must not be doing very well.

Not when there are very good tools out there that don't cost anything.


Such as? If you're doing Java development, then sure, you can use Swing (for custom apps it doesn't really matter that it's ugly as sin and doesn't integrate so well), but for C++ I haven't found anything else. GTKmm is not stable cross platform (and is just a GUI lib), and wxWidgets is ok but ugly to program with and doesn't have things like the advanced canvas library in Qt. And documentation on those projects is spotty as best.

By all means, if there was a free alternative out there for fast C++ development, I would go for it, but in my experience, there just isn't.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[9]: Unconvinced
by mikeurbandz on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:12 in reply to "RE[8]: Unconvinced"
mikeurbandz Member since:
2007-10-29

> $2310 actually.

Plus over $2,000 every 12 months to renew if I want to be able to legally use the upgrades for commercial development. If it were a one time thing, sure. But $2,000 for 12 months of update maintenance? Per developer? Nope. Not gonna happen.

> Such as? If you're doing Java development, then
> sure, you can use Swing (for custom apps it
> doesn't really matter that it's ugly as sin and
> doesn't integrate so well)

Actually, Swing in the latest version of Java does a better job of looking and feeling native on Vista than the current version of Qt does. If you think it is ugly, you must be using the default ocean look and feel, instead of setting it to adopt the platform native look and feel.

Typically, I am using either Java or Python. I jumped off the C++ bandwagon quite a few years ago. And, yes, if you limit yourself to C++, wxWidgets is quite ugly. But it's actually quite nice to work with in Python.

I've also been flirting with .NET a bit for Windows only development. They have some very impressive GUI development tools. But C++ is not an option I would ever want to go back to.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Unconvinced
by leos on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:51 in reply to "RE[9]: Unconvinced"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21


Plus over $2,000 every 12 months to renew if I want to be able to legally use the upgrades for commercial development. If it were a one time thing, sure. But $2,000 for 12 months of update maintenance? Per developer? Nope. Not gonna happen.


This all comes down to value proposition. For me, that is easily worth it (especially since I don't need all three platforms). You are comparing Qt to some magical free alternative that you believe has equal features, whereas I'm comparing it based on it saving me a lot of development time. I am happy to pay for tools that save me time and thus save me more money than the cost of the tool.

Actually, Swing in the latest version of Java does a better job of looking and feeling native on Vista than the current version of Qt does. If you think it is ugly, you must be using the default ocean look and feel, instead of setting it to adopt the platform native look and feel.


Examples please? I haven't had any trouble with Qt integration into Vista. See here for examples of widgets: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/gallery-windowsvista.html
Even with the platform integration LaF, I find Java apps are really ugly (haven't tried it on Vista though so that might no longer apply there).

Typically, I am using either Java or Python. I jumped off the C++ bandwagon quite a few years ago.


So why are you arguing based on the pricing of the C++ version of Qt?

I've also been flirting with .NET a bit for Windows only development. They have some very impressive GUI development tools. But C++ is not an option I would ever want to go back to.


I would never consider C++ without Qt. Java is a nice option with excellent IDEs, but once you get outside the Java world and have to interact with the underlying system, things get ugly fast. Performance and memory consumption is not fantastic either, but that's getting better with time. I've played with C# and .NET, but that really limits you to Windows. At least with Java or C++ you have the option of supporting Mac/Linux (and no, mono does not count as an option). Haven't used a scripting language like python yet, mostly because of problems with deployment and I don't consider a weakly typed language suitable for complex app development.

Reply Parent Score: 4