As I outline above, if you're calling Qt on any of today's platforms ugly, then you've the parent toolkit to blame. Qt isn't actually defining that style, it uses existing APIs to render the widgets.

I question this. Are you saying Qt itself has these crashes? Because in some years of using it now (often pre-release, I've been using 4.7 on my desktop for well over three months now) and I'm still yet to experience many crashes caused by *Qt*. I thought I found one the other day, and it ended out (after a few days of investigation) to be my fault, not Qt's.

While this is just as subjective a statement as someone saying 'Qt is buggy', I don't think that's a statement that you can claim to *objectively* make without measurement and statistics.

I don't see your logic here.

Your point implies that the easiest way to use the power of Qt, is to not use Qt, and go back to all the headaches of C++ that Qt helps relieve you of? (QObject signal/events, most of the details of memory management - unless you want to deal with it, etc).

This doesn't really make sense to me.

It's worth noting at this point that the link of the flaws of C++, while a good read, is actually addressed to some extents *by* Qt.

It's not even that, so much as people not asking questions, and using knee-jerk reactions based on misinformed opinions.

Really, the best way to get involved in this discussion is to find someone *knowledgable* on both sides of the debate, learn from them, ask them questions, and then you'll have a balanced opinion.

For the record, at least in my experience, PyQt/PySide are pretty useful. I've used them for prototyping a few times.