Qbs 1.8 Released -- Planned To Replace QMake Build System In Qt 6

[cipri]

Where do you get this idea, please stop spreading dis-information?}[/code]

I go that idea from the fact that i could not build any libraries in the time when using qbs. Tell in what qbs version the ability of building libs was introduced. And show me the documentation, and tell when that documentation was put online.

I have spent a lot of time with qt, and came to see so many new introduced bugs. Bugs reported by me, where flagged as "critical", and even many years passed, they were not touched (not to say fixed)! This is QT! Qt is fixing bugs and working on the stuff their clients are paying, and introducing all the time new features.... which are like worthless since they are full of bugs and uncomplete (check out Qt3D). Then you realize, you spend so much time, learning their ideas asan alpha-tester, and then you have to choose: you fix yourself their bugs, and trying to stay in sync with the main repo, or you erase QT.
This is what I did, I moved away from QT, doing everything myself with Wayland and Vulkan. And instead of QMake I use CMake. Check out the popularity of CMake over QMake.
Instead of Qt-Creator I use Kate. I'm not going anymore to depend on something buggy as QT. In the time learning QT and learning how to by-pass the Qt-Bugs, I can write my own Framework!

I can urge any programmer, to be intelligent, and not stay bound to one single framework. If you use Qt, write wrappers, write the code very modular, so that it's easy as possible to remove all the QT dependency when needed. And try to avoid GPL licenses!

[cipri]

Where do you get this idea, please stop spreading dis-information? I've been using QBS for almost two years with my Qtcreator projects, (building .so and .a) scores of times per day for these particular products.

install gcc for arm-none-eabi , and build libs, and tell me how is your experience with qbs on linux.
May i guess? It won't work out of the box, you will have search any manually edit internal qbs-files so that it starts the compiling!!

[pat36]

This is what I did, I moved away from QT, doing everything myself with Wayland and Vulkan. And instead of QMake I use CMake. Check out the popularity of CMake over QMake.
Instead of Qt-Creator I use Kate. I'm not going anymore to depend on something buggy as QT. In the time learning QT and learning how to by-pass the Qt-Bugs, I can write my own Framework!

You always write about your GUI library, can you show it?

[Noee]

I go that idea from the fact that i could not build any libraries in the time when using qbs. Tell in what qbs version the ability of building libs was introduced. And show me the documentation, and tell when that documentation was put online.

Can't tell you precisely, but I've been building libs on linux since 1.3, maybe even 1.2, IIRC.

I have spent a lot of time with qt, and came to see so many new introduced bugs. Bugs reported by me, where flagged as "critical", and even many years passed, they were not touched (not to say fixed)! This is QT! Qt is fixing bugs and working on the stuff their clients are paying, and introducing all the time new features.... which are like worthless since they are full of bugs and uncomplete (check out Qt3D). Then you realize, you spend so much time, learning their ideas asan alpha-tester, and then you have to choose: you fix yourself their bugs, and trying to stay in sync with the main repo, or you erase QT.
This is what I did, I moved away from QT, doing everything myself with Wayland and Vulkan. And instead of QMake I use CMake. Check out the popularity of CMake over QMake.
Instead of Qt-Creator I use Kate. I'm not going anymore to depend on something buggy as QT. In the time learning QT and learning how to by-pass the Qt-Bugs, I can write my own Framework!

I can urge any programmer, to be intelligent, and not stay bound to one single framework. If you use Qt, write wrappers, write the code very modular, so that it's easy as possible to remove all the QT dependency when needed. And try to avoid GPL licenses!

Good advice and yes, I do just that with the Qt projects that get thrown my way. I spend most my day in KDevelop/CMake, however, so I get it, I'm just saying that yeah, QBS ain't gonna take over the world, but it's not the end of world either. FWIW, I've had pretty good luck with the few projects I've looked at recently (very simple stuff, really) with QtCreator/CMake. I despise qmake.

[cj.wijtmans]

What a horrifying syntax. It almost makes Gentoo Ebuilds look sane.

might as well use json syntax.

[cj.wijtmans]

You always write about your GUI library, can you show it?

isnt kate based on Qt as KDE is?

[GreatEmerald]

Hm, OK. I haven't seen anything use Qbs, but qmake is pretty good; it's one of the few build systems that doesn't flip out due to multilib (such as libx32).

[ldo17]

They've outlined why cmake doesn't fit their needs, it provides nearly zero information needed by IDEs for managing C++ projects.

Build systems should not have to support IDEs, it is IDEs that have to support build systems. You don’t want your build system locking you to a particular IDE, do you?

[anda_skoa]

Build systems should not have to support IDEs, it is IDEs that have to support build systems. You don’t want your build system locking you to a particular IDE, do you?

What they likely meant is that the project file language makes it easier to handle by software.
Some build systems' input files are very hard to manipulate for programs, e.g. when the IDE needs to add a new source or header file.

Cheers,
_

[ldo17]

[/SIZE]

What they likely meant is that the project file language makes it easier to handle by software.
Some build systems' input files are very hard to manipulate for programs, e.g. when the IDE needs to add a new source or header file.
_

In other words, IDEs are not powerful enough to cater for complex builds. Do we want our build systems dumbed down just to cater to the limitations of IDEs? We all know what kind of software that leads to...