Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt 5.12 Lowering The QML Memory Consumption, Better JavaScript Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by GrayShade View Post
    Are there any major open-source applications using QML (except maybe KDE/Plasma widgets)? I don't think I've ever seen one.
    Not opensource but this uses it:
    Blizards https://battle.net

    Comment


    • #12
      In this triumphant message from the qt.io guys, you see the source of all Qt problems at once: They throw all their effort into JavaScript, QML and Qt Quick. They leave much to be desired on the C++ side. That Qt ship is heading the wrong direction.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by lowflyer View Post
        In this triumphant message from the qt.io guys, you see the source of all Qt problems at once: They throw all their effort into JavaScript, QML and Qt Quick. They leave much to be desired on the C++ side. That Qt ship is heading the wrong direction.
        There's actually a renewed focus on exposing more C++ APIs again. For example, the new way of handling mouse/touch/etc input in Qt Quick/QML, the Input Handlers that are coming into their own in 5.12, has extensive C++ API allowing subclassing for custom behavior. The old input handling primitives (MouseArea, etc.) never did. There are other similar goals for Qt 6.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Sho_ View Post

          There's actually a renewed focus on exposing more C++ APIs again. For example, the new way of handling mouse/touch/etc input in Qt Quick/QML, the Input Handlers that are coming into their own in 5.12, has extensive C++ API allowing subclassing for custom behavior. The old input handling primitives (MouseArea, etc.) never did. There are other similar goals for Qt 6.
          Sho_, I sincerely hope you're correct about the "renewed focus" on C++. You might have more insight into the grass-roots of Qt development than I do. Although I don't see *any* of this in Lars' blog posts. The last time he mentioned C++ was with Qt 5.8 where he pointed to "exposing more C++11 features". At that time, C++11 was already 6 years old. The other qt blog posts also do not lift my spirits.

          I know, I'm bitching and moaning here... But I do that in the hope that some Qt Dev reads it and - perhaps - acts upon it.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by cl333r View Post

            You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Even Linux distros like Fedora and Ubuntu ship with Vulkan disabled. None of what you said makes sense, there's a lot of stuff they don't use for the scenegraph or whatever - doesn't mean they disable it. You probably don't understand that Qt is a toolkit and its main purpose is not to enable the toolkit devs to do stuff with their toolkit. It's all about the users of the toolkit, get it?
            Nothing makes sense to one that is deprived of sense. If your ridiculous notions of the purpose of Qt were true, at the very least it wouldn't have left its most voted up and very necessary feature requests unaddressed for years. And I actually happen to rank amongst the top 10 Qt experts.. like in the world. So yeah, what do I know...

            QML is vastly overrated somewhat like Java applets or JavaFX when these were alive
            Now that is a glorious example of your cluelessness and ignorance. It has nothing to do with either, as represents a completely new paradigm to programming. Sure, efficiency is lousy and the API is stiff and buggy and disconnected from the C++ APIs, but conceptually, QML is one of the most significant things that has happened in the field of programming the past decade, and it is, if anything, grossly underrated.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by ddriver View Post

              Nothing makes sense to one that is deprived of sense. If your ridiculous notions of the purpose of Qt were true, at the very least it wouldn't have left its most voted up and very necessary feature requests unaddressed for years. And I actually happen to rank amongst the top 10 Qt experts.. like in the world. So yeah, what do I know...
              That only means you're clueless and trying to brag. How does shipping with Qt support but disabling it on purpose benefit Qt's goals? How is it good for Qt for its users to deliberately go thru big obstacles to use Vulkan? How does it make sense for you the "top 10 Qt expert"?? Does it start making sense to you that you're wrong and there must be a technical issue for disabling Vulkan and not because developers of Qt don't use it internally?
              It's ridiculous that a "top 10 Qt expert" would expose such bad reasoning.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by cl333r View Post
                That only means you're clueless and trying to brag. How does shipping with Qt support but disabling it on purpose benefit Qt's goals? How is it good for Qt for its users to deliberately go thru big obstacles to use Vulkan? How does it make sense for you the "top 10 Qt expert"?? Does it start making sense to you that you're wrong and there must be a technical issue for disabling Vulkan and not because developers of Qt don't use it internally?
                It's ridiculous that a "top 10 Qt expert" would expose such bad reasoning.
                If you can't see the benefits of configurability, the only thing ridiculous here is you. I am not defending the decisions being made in regard with the binaries that Qt provides, they don't work for me neither, which is why I mostly use my own builds. There is no one size that fits all, and it is a good thing that Qt can be configured to a substantial degree, unlike much of the popular software development tools out there.

                Now, I'd understand and even validate your whining if it was one of those tools that didn't provide configurability, but that is not the case. There are about 30 minutes that separate you from a version of Qt specifically tailored to your own personal requirements. There are many things you can enable and disable in Qt. The world doesn't revolve around your particular needs or notions of usability, if you haven't figured that out yet, then you have my sincere condolences. Stock Qt builds are provided for newbs that have very basic requirements. Every remotely serious developer will roll out a number of personalized builds to make the most of different hardware and software platforms.

                Qt is not for babies that can't be expected to do anything more than use a binary provided as it is. Which is what you evidently are. Qt is for advanced developers who do not tremble in fear of compiling not only their software but also the tools they use to create it. If building Qt is a "big obstacle" for you, I hardly doubt you can go beyond a "hello triangle" vulkan application you copy from a tutorial. From your behavior so far it is abundantly clear you are nothing but a wannabe lamer. The only other unknown is whether or not you have the brain cells to take something out of this act of schooling, either way, my social duty to educate you ends with this post, because if you can't, then any further effort is a waste.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by ddriver View Post

                  If you can't see the benefits of configurability, the only thing ridiculous here is you. I am not defending the decisions being made in regard with the binaries that Qt provides, they don't work for me neither, which is why I mostly use my own builds. There is no one size that fits all, and it is a good thing that Qt can be configured to a substantial degree, unlike much of the popular software development tools out there.

                  Now, I'd understand and even validate your whining if it was one of those tools that didn't provide configurability, but that is not the case. There are about 30 minutes that separate you from a version of Qt specifically tailored to your own personal requirements. There are many things you can enable and disable in Qt. The world doesn't revolve around your particular needs or notions of usability, if you haven't figured that out yet, then you have my sincere condolences. Stock Qt builds are provided for newbs that have very basic requirements. Every remotely serious developer will roll out a number of personalized builds to make the most of different hardware and software platforms.

                  Qt is not for babies that can't be expected to do anything more than use a binary provided as it is. Which is what you evidently are. Qt is for advanced developers who do not tremble in fear of compiling not only their software but also the tools they use to create it. If building Qt is a "big obstacle" for you, I hardly doubt you can go beyond a "hello triangle" vulkan application you copy from a tutorial. From your behavior so far it is abundantly clear you are nothing but a wannabe lamer. The only other unknown is whether or not you have the brain cells to take something out of this act of schooling, either way, my social duty to educate you ends with this post, because if you can't, then any further effort is a waste.
                  You're even more clueless than I thought!
                  It's not about "configurability", it's about doing what's good for the users, are you really so stupid to believe that deliberately making users having to build Qt from source to use Vulkan a good decision? Really? How deep do you have to have your head up your ass? Why are you defending the idea that to use Vulkan you have to build Qt from source? Why aren't you honest even with yourself and admit it's a shitty decision?

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by cl333r View Post

                    You're even more clueless than I thought!
                    It's not about "configurability", it's about doing what's good for the users, are you really so stupid to believe that deliberately making users having to build Qt from source to use Vulkan a good decision? Really? How deep do you have to have your head up your ass? Why are you defending the idea that to use Vulkan you have to build Qt from source? Why aren't you honest even with yourself and admit it's a shitty decision?
                    Qt is a pile of shitty decisions, one on top of another. I am not defending any of those. It is just how it is and how it will be. You can bitch and whine about it, or you can adapt to it, that's the whole point you keep on miserably failing to get.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X