![]() |
2009-12-13
, 23:55
|
Posts: 237 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ San Diego, CA
|
#21
|
|
2009-12-14
, 01:26
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#22
|
![]() |
2009-12-14
, 04:23
|
Posts: 237 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ San Diego, CA
|
#23
|
noobmonkey: I forgot to mention that if you want to learn Qt fast, you can get the previous edition of the official Qt book as a free download (it's too old to cover the Maemo-specific features of Qt, but it's a great book, and good as a general reference to Qt) The documentation is also quite good, although the book is a better place to start for most people. I'd read the first few chapters, then skim the conceptual overview pages on the Qt Docs (e.g. signals and slots, etc.)
Link: http://blog.hartwork.org/?p=156
I've also heard this book (also free) recommended: but I think it's more advanced, and I haven't looked at it yet: http://cartan.cas.suffolk.edu/oopdocbook/opensource/
#qt on Freenode IRC is also quite helpful, as is #maemo for Maemo questions
![]() |
2009-12-14
, 13:21
|
|
Posts: 3,203 |
Thanked: 1,391 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Worthing, England
|
#24
|
![]() |
2009-12-14
, 13:35
|
|
Posts: 529 |
Thanked: 262 times |
Joined on Dec 2008
@ Eastleigh, Hampshire, UK
|
#25
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dwould For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2009-12-14
, 23:39
|
Posts: 237 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ San Diego, CA
|
#26
|
From my perspective I'd say use python. yes c++ *can* be faster, but only if you can actually get it to work. in my experience unless you are trying to push the limits of the device, the difference in app performance will be hidden completely by bad programming.
By which I mean you'll waste so much time trying to make c++ work at all, or do anything, that the theoretical performance difference isn't worth much.
of course if you already know c/c++ and are a super clever guy, then go for it. But for me, coming from a java background, I tried C, and it took me ages to get not very far, and I gave up trying to debug my segfaults. I just wasn't prepared to sink my time into getting good enough at C to make it worth while.
Python is *way* faster to develop and get on with for anyone that doesn't start with serious c experience.
In real terms I think I stand a better chance of writing performant Python than I do in C, just because I have a better understanding of what is going on. But maybe that's just me.
![]() |
2009-12-14
, 23:43
|
|
Posts: 3,203 |
Thanked: 1,391 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Worthing, England
|
#27
|
![]() |
2009-12-14
, 23:48
|
Posts: 237 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ San Diego, CA
|
#28
|
The Following User Says Thank You to go1dfish For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2009-12-15
, 09:11
|
|
Posts: 41 |
Thanked: 8 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Zürich, Switzerland
|
#29
|
![]() |
2009-12-15
, 09:18
|
Posts: 66 |
Thanked: 44 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
|
#30
|
I tried C, and it took me ages to get not very far, and I gave up trying to debug my segfaults.