Digia Qt Spinoff Is Called "The Qt Company"

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Digia Qt Spinoff Is Called "The Qt Company"

Last month we wrote about Digia's plans to spin off its commercial Qt business and now today we have some more information on that change...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc5MDE

[schmidtbag]

Hmm I've never seen a .io domain before. I never knew it existed. Pretty cool though - less fragmentation is nice.

[mark45]

This reminds me of Sun Microsystem's last few years where it kept constantly "reinventing" itself doing bad things to itself and Java and even renaming itself to "Java" (instead of SUN) on Nasdaq. Digia seems also obsessed with putting new labels on itself and/or its "products" to raise (more) money at any cost while trying to camuflage this with PR demagogy like their revamped Qt site which is first and foremost about trying to sell you something. As mentioned before, their "new" qt download page has visual/logical tricks into getting you to buy Qt.
These are bad symptoms for Qt, or Digia, or both.

[GreatEmerald]

That's not an extremely original name, but it certainly works.

Hmm I've never seen a .io domain before. I never knew it existed. Pretty cool though - less fragmentation is nice.

I've seen plenty. The one I visit most often tends to be http://snapper.io (quicker to enter than the GitHub address).

[clavko]

These are bad symptoms for Qt, or Digia, or both.

I agree. Visibility comes with good support. They lack MSDN style support
(library help, examples, design patterns, community). One responsive web
sheet won't change that, they need more developers. Even Ballmer knew that...

[anda_skoa]

They lack MSDN style support
(library help, examples, design patterns, community).

This is all part of the main project web site, which, if I understood correctly, will become directly accessible from the new site as well.

Cheers,
_

[clavko]

This is all part of the main project web site, which, if I understood correctly, will become directly accessible from the new site as well.

Cheers,
_

I'm not saying that there's no help and tutorials, I'm just saying that these
are not even close to MSDN in depth, quality and quantity. So my point was
that instead of investing time in another pointless "me too" RWD placeholder
they should invest time in creating an experience similar to this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/Apps/windows.ui.xaml.controls.appbarbutton

Rather than this:

http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qpushbutton.html

It's a matter of style, consistency, organization, etc...

[DrYak]

So my point was
that instead of investing time in another pointless "me too" RWD placeholder
they should invest time in creating an experience similar to this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/Apps/windows.ui.xaml.controls.appbarbutton

Rather than this:

http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qpushbutton.html

Having worked extensively with Qt on recent projects, I find they documentation good enough.
It might not win prizes.
But does it job to give enough information to be functional.

[anda_skoa]

they should invest time in creating an experience similar to this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/Apps/windows.ui.xaml.controls.appbarbutton

Rather than this:

http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qpushbutton.html

Aside from these being two different type of controls, I personally find the MSDN link extremely unreadable and confusing, not even close to the clarity and simplicity of the linked Qt documentation.

Cheers,
_

[AchooseB]

they should invest time in creating an experience similar to this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/Apps/windows.ui.xaml.controls.appbarbutton

Rather than this:

http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qpushbutton.html

It's a matter of style, consistency, organization, etc...

I would prefer taking features of both formats. In the MSDN example, I like the tree navigation at the left, but I do not like the fact that the signatures of the events and methods are absent from the main page. Instead, I have to move to a different page to discoverr, for example, that AddHandler(.) takes a RoutedEvent, and object, and a bool. The Qt example page makes it easy to find the signature of functions, which is often all I need. However, the page layout is cluttered and navigation is more difficult.

One isssue that often frustrates me is that the Qt documentation lacks sufficient detail, particularly when it comes to aspects that differ by platform. There are separate pages for the various platforms, but these lack sufficient detail. An expandable section in the documentation for platform-specific issuess would really help.

For example, I had to discover on my own that on QComboBox does double-duty on Mac, as either NSComboBox (if the QComboBox is editable) and NSPopUpButton and NSPopUpButton (if the QComboBox is not editable).