Timeline for Why aren't more desktop apps written with Qt?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2019 at 7:02 | comment | added | user1633272 | @EdwardStrange the property grid widget isn't in its official release now. Very bad news, one have to build it by themselves. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 18:52 | comment | added | Vinícius A. Jorge | everything that responds to a signal has to be a Q_OBJECT, No nowadays... Now, static functions, functions and even lambda functions can respond a signal (you can use function pointers as slots). No-QObject classes can also have member slots if you connect to them using a std::bind to convert the instance member to a function pointer. | |
| Sep 28, 2018 at 23:42 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Sep 30, 2018 at 18:10 | |||||
| Apr 25, 2014 at 22:42 | comment | added | Tim | While I agree with your observation, and that Qt is certainly not about code quality, I do not understand your last paragraph about automated UI testing. The standard Windows controls implement the UI Automation interfaces, better than Qt ever will. "Native" Windows API programming as well as any framework encapsulating native controls (like MFC, or WTL) suits itself for standard UI testing. Can you expand on that? | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 6:53 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by user102518 | ||
| Jul 1, 2011 at 17:38 | comment | added | Tom Anderson | Thanks. I've only used it a bit, and through the wxPython API, where it seemed quite nice. I can appreciate that that would hide some of the evil, but also that i just haven't got deeply enough involved to have come up against the more serious problems. Something for me to be aware of. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 16:59 | comment | added | Edward Strange | I was also disturbed by the acceptance of the property grid library into the main line. I used that library and it showed numerous, fundamental design flaws in addition to actual lack of knowledge on behalf of the programmer who wrote it (called virtual functions in constructors for example). It, and the poor state of AUI, showed a trend to poorer standards. I'm also not a big fan of static event tables, though at least there's another way to respond to events...unlike MFC, which WX is just too much like to be exciting anyway. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 16:57 | comment | added | Edward Strange | @Tom - poor documentation, especially for the new stuff. The AUI components are barely documented at all with large sections missing, making it difficult to use in a production environment. The documentation for the event process is fundamentally in error with regard to the path that is followed, on win32 at least. Spent a lot of time yelling at the computer, "This should be working!!!" before getting down into the deep processing code to find out that what WX does isn't following the docs and what I was doing would NEVER work. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 11:33 | comment | added | Tom Anderson | Out of interest, what do you see as the main problems with WX? | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 7:20 | history | answered | Edward Strange | CC BY-SA 3.0 |