|
|
David Ching wrote on Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:09 AM:
> ... For example, please tell me how I would quickly use Qt to
> develop the apps shown in
> http://www.telerik.com/products/winforms/sample-applications.aspx
"Sales Dashboard" - Oh PLEASE, c'mon! Some nicely rendered "business charts"
with "flushy flushy" mouse-over effects don't make an application yet! That is
the problem when comparing toolkits: "managers" and other "decision makers" are
so easiliy blended with these "sexy GUI" elements. Just add a few widgets with
"compelling visual effects" and there you go: "We NEED this technology"! nah...
> I honestly hope you can, because I would far rather use Qt than .NET
> to develop these kinds of apps.
Agreed: Qt does not offers these "out-of-the-box" "Manager/salespeople" widgets
- and I hope it never will!Because it is so easy to build them by yourself (and
yes, in my former company they DID this ribbon crap easily with Qt.)
And I am sure you could easily increase performance in your
[you-name-it]-toolkit with OpenGL by simply replacing the target widget, just
like Qt can? Or you can draw any QWidget with OpenGL, just as with Qt
(http://doc.trolltech.com/4.6/demos-embeddeddialogs.html)
But IMHO the best part of Qt has not yet been discussed: the CLEAR separation
of generated (UI) code and the actual implementation! Everything you create
with Qt Designer is put into a separate file/namespace and you never see it
mixed. And the simple power of signals/slots is so much more appealing than
this observer-pattern in Java, for example (define an Observable-interface, add
add/delete-observer methods, etc. - everything that is done automatically by
the moc in Qt for you).
> But I don't know how.
As everyone knows: "You never stop learning in your life."
Cheers, Oliver
--
Oliver Knoll
Dipl. Informatik-Ing. ETH
COMIT AG - ++41 79 520 95 22
_______________________________________________
Qt-interest mailing list
Qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest
|
|