Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44

Thread: Qt 5.0 Beta Not Here Due To Difficulties

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    We're doing circles.

    You cannot use C++ to do all the new stuff (animations, transitions, transformations, etc.) You HAVE to use QML. I don't like to write in QML. It's awful, like with many other languages where strict compiler checking has been thrown down the toilet. If I wanted that, I would write in Python or something and use its Qt bindings.

    It's like putting away with C in Gtk and tell everyone to use VisalBasic or something. Because that's what happened here.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    And btw, I'm not alone in this. In a poll that was posted:

    http://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/16693/

    Nobody cared for any features other than Desktop integration and a C++ API. Many people, no matter how feature rich Qt Quick gets, consider it a PITA unless you can use it from C++.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    We're doing circles.

    You cannot use C++ to do all the new stuff (animations, transitions, transformations, etc.) You HAVE to use QML. I don't like to write in QML. It's awful, like with many other languages where strict compiler checking has been thrown down the toilet. If I wanted that, I would write in Python or something and use its Qt bindings.

    It's like putting away with C in Gtk and tell everyone to use VisalBasic or something. Because that's what happened here.
    Oh no, they added a declaritive way of doing UIs. Unfortunately doing declaritive programming in an imparitive language (C++) doesn't work that well.. I am pretty sure that they have C++ stuff in the works, but it may or not be there for 5.0. Declaritve programming is very good for for UIs though, no reason to complain about it.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowBane View Post
    Declaritve programming is very good for for UIs though
    I strongly disagree.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    I strongly disagree.
    Ok, so if declaritive programming is worse for UIs than imparitive programming why is the use of declaritive languages to create user interfaces on the rise?

    Also, what exactly makes imparitive languages good for user interfaces?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    IMO GUI programming is nothing special. It doesn't need special treatment from a programmer's point of view. The need for non-programmers to create GUIs is the reason for this move. GUI designers who know Photoshop but not C (or similar languages), can now create GUIs (you can export QML from graphics tools.)

    That's good. I support it. But don't shut me off from being able to work with my preferred tools for no reason. QML is not better for me. It's better for others, because they can't use what I use.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    IMO GUI programming is nothing special. It doesn't need special treatment from a programmer's point of view. The need for non-programmers to create GUIs is the reason for this move. GUI designers who know Photoshop but not C (or similar languages), can now create GUIs (you can export QML from graphics tools.)
    It isn't quite that simple. QML allows for the new scenegraph system, which apparently improves GUI performance considerably and allows for smooth animations like transitions. So there are specific technical benefits to it besides making it easier for non-programmers.

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    That's good. I support it. But don't shut me off from being able to work with my preferred tools for no reason. QML is not better for me. It's better for others, because they can't use what I use.
    Nobody is shut off from anything, qwidget is still there in Qt 5.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    It isn't quite that simple. QML allows for the new scenegraph system, which apparently improves GUI performance considerably and allows for smooth animations like transitions. So there are specific technical benefits to it besides making it easier for non-programmers.
    That's not QML. That's the underlying base code. You get access to it through QML only.

    It seems you missed the point (even though I wrote it down many times). So I'll write it once again: Why *only* QML?

    Nobody is shut off from anything, qwidget is still there in Qt 5.
    "Improves GUI performance considerably and allows for smooth animations like transitions."

    You're shut off from that with QWidget.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    It seems you missed the point (even though I wrote it down many times). So I'll write it once again: Why *only* QML?
    Because that is the whole point of using a declarative language. With an imperative language like C++, you have to tell the system exactly how to do what you want it to do. With a declarative language you tell the system what you want in the end, and the system figures out the best way to accomplish it. And the latter case is exactly what scenegraph is all about, it knows what the finished product should look like, so it can then figure out exactly how to go about producing that in the most efficient possible way. That is fundamentally impossible with an imperative language like C++, where you have to manually lay out each rendering step.

    I guess, theoretically, you could embed a new declarative language inside C++ code, but that really doesn't do what you want it to do, because it still wouldn't be C++, in the end it would still be a new language.

    And you can't do it at all with qwidget, since by definition qwidgets have their rendering code inside the class, which is exactly what scenegraph was designed to avoid. So no matter how you implemented the declarative language, you could never use qwidget.
    Last edited by TheBlackCat; 08-20-2012 at 05:12 AM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Because that is the whole point of using a declarative language. With an imperative language like C++, you have to tell the system exactly how to do what you want it to do. With a declarative language you tell the system what you want in the end, and the system figures out the best way to accomplish it. And the latter case is exactly what scenegraph is all about, it knows what the finished product should look like, so it can then figure out exactly how to go about producing that in the most efficient possible way. That is fundamentally impossible with an imperative language like C++, where you have to manually lay out each rendering step.

    I guess, theoretically, you could embed a new declarative language inside C++ code, but that really doesn't do what you want it to do, because it still wouldn't be C++, in the end it would still be a new language.

    And you can't do it at all with qwidget, since by definition qwidgets have their rendering code inside the class, which is exactly what scenegraph was designed to avoid. So no matter how you implemented the declarative language, you could never use qwidget.
    EFL disagrees with you. Scene graph in C.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •