Say NO! to Qt-based Maemo! - Page 11 - maemo.org

Active Topics

Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 8 hrs, 37 mins ago
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 9 hrs, 52 mins ago
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 1 day, 1 hr ago
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 1 day, 22 hrs ago
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 3 days, 5 hrs ago
more...

Page 11 of 14

Thread Tools

Joorin	2010-04-20 , 17:28
Posts: 726 \| Thanked: 345 times \| Joined on Apr 2010 @ Sweden	#101

Originally Posted by sevla

I never said bling = progress. Improved user experience however does = progress. Object Oriented design = progress.

C has it's place in low level code but not in developing front end applications..

just my .02 cents.

fwiw I am a software developer at IBM and not some random wannabe techie blogger, trendy coffee shop goer.

My hunch is that what many call "improved user experience" (and I call bling) is bought with CPU cycles needed to keep ahead of other devices and with memory needed to actually give the end user a good experience.

Object oriented programming is a tool for modelling the problem domain. Its encapsulating properties are handy in many ways and it can be used to partition the code. Yes, most know this. But is it the best tool, in the shape of C++, for solving the problem of being the preferred toolkit on a device like the N900? My gut feeling is "Not all too sure.".

Why shouldn't C have a place in "front end applications"? If anything, this idea comes across as weird. But perhaps I'm just an old fart like the 3D designer some posts back assumes.

You being employed by IBM is good and all (I'm sure your eP3n1s is bigger than mine) but that's not an argument.

Quote & Reply |

	Bundyo	2010-04-20 , 17:29
	Posts: 4,708 \| Thanked: 4,649 times \| Joined on Oct 2007 @ Bulgaria	#102

Originally Posted by admiral0

Try QT creator or Kdevelop and you'll see

Interface designer doesn't make you a programmer you know...

__________________
Technically, there are three determinate states the cat could be in: Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bundyo For This Useful Post:
qwerty12, Venemo

sevla	2010-04-20 , 17:48
Posts: 244 \| Thanked: 155 times \| Joined on Aug 2009 @ DC	#103

Originally Posted by nicola.mfb

Just for those that thinks qt is not easy, this is little tool that shows how to create a button that when clicked emit a signal on the session bus.

mywidget.h

Code:

#include <QWidget>
#include <QPushButton>
#include <QVBoxLayout>
#include <QDBusConnection>

class MyWidget : public QWidget
{
  Q_OBJECT
  public:
  MyWidget() : QWidget() {
    QDBusConnection::sessionBus().registerObject("/",this,QDBusConnection::ExportAllContents);
    new QVBoxLayout(this);
    QPushButton *b = new QPushButton("emit signal",this);
    layout()->addWidget(b);
    connect(b,SIGNAL(clicked()),SIGNAL(clicked()));
    show();
  }
  signals:
    void clicked();
};

Can also do it this way I think. Or use auto_ptr which does not need a "delete".

Code:

#include <QWidget>
#include <QPushButton>
#include <QVBoxLayout>
#include <QDBusConnection>

class MyWidget : public QWidget
{
  Q_OBJECT
  public:
  MyWidget() : QWidget(), m_b(QPushButton("emit signal", this)) {
    QDBusConnection::sessionBus().registerObject("/",this,QDBusConnection::ExportAllContents);
    new QVBoxLayout(this);
    layout()->addWidget(m_b);
    connect(m_b,SIGNAL(clicked()),SIGNAL(clicked()));
    show();
  }
  signals:
    void clicked();

private:
   QPushButton * m_b;
};

Last edited by sevla; 2010-04-20 at 17:51.

Quote & Reply |

tomaszrybak	2010-04-20 , 18:26
Posts: 30 \| Thanked: 13 times \| Joined on Mar 2010 @ Poland	#104

Originally Posted by smoku

Like licensing did matter.

Freedesktop is run by a board and introduces its plans openly in advance. GNOME has clear open milestones decided in advance.

But putting dependency on Mono might be one of the reasons that some companies might want to avoid introducing GNOME into their devices.

Quote & Reply |

Patola	2010-04-20 , 18:28
Posts: 267 \| Thanked: 183 times \| Joined on Jan 2010 @ Campinas, SP, Brazil	#105

I followed the whole discussion and I think the real problem is:

Originally Posted by smoku

One company holding the code could:
- keep you with an unknown release date of the next bugfix release
- join forces with another big company and totally change direction leaving the community behind
- more?

Nokia is doing that right now with the delay of PR1.2 and the Meego Consortium. How can we best avoid and work around these issues?

I am deeply disappointed with Nokia, btw. I once thought it understood open source/free software.

__________________
My nickname on freenode is ptl, that is, the consonants of my nickname here. Kind of a long story.

Quote & Reply |

	Texrat	2010-04-20 , 18:32
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#106

Originally Posted by Patola

I am deeply disappointed with Nokia, btw. I once thought it understood open source/free software.

Some individuals in the massive company do. They are working hard to spread the religion.

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
OVK, Venemo

Kwljunky	2010-04-20 , 18:40
Posts: 41 \| Thanked: 7 times \| Joined on Jan 2010	#107

So wait wait, let me get this straight, your complaining about QT which will make cross platform development, like porting symbian apps to meego and meego to symbian and to other platforms easier and less work, so we end up with a load of apps rather then a few... ???
It will make it look nicer rather then outdated when compared with other apps from other mobile platforms and they do compare them.

Quote & Reply |

viraptor	2010-04-20 , 19:03
Posts: 49 \| Thanked: 41 times \| Joined on Apr 2010	#108

Originally Posted by tomaszrybak

But putting dependency on Mono might be one of the reasons that some companies might want to avoid introducing GNOME into their devices.

And more FUD. Gnome doesn't depend on Mono. Gnome includes some Mono-based applications by default. There is a difference.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to viraptor For This Useful Post:
Bundyo, qwerty12, Texrat, Venemo

sevla	2010-04-20 , 19:32
Posts: 244 \| Thanked: 155 times \| Joined on Aug 2009 @ DC	#109

Originally Posted by Joorin

My hunch is that what many call "improved user experience" (and I call bling) is bought with CPU cycles needed to keep ahead of other devices and with memory needed to actually give the end user a good experience.

Object oriented programming is a tool for modelling the problem domain. Its encapsulating properties are handy in many ways and it can be used to partition the code. Yes, most know this. But is it the best tool, in the shape of C++, for solving the problem of being the preferred toolkit on a device like the N900? My gut feeling is "Not all too sure.".

Why shouldn't C have a place in "front end applications"? If anything, this idea comes across as weird. But perhaps I'm just an old fart like the 3D designer some posts back assumes.

You being employed by IBM is good and all (I'm sure your eP3n1s is bigger than mine) but that's not an argument.

I didn't mention my employment to reference anything to the size of my Electronic Penis. I was simply noting that my comments were based off experience and not random thoughts or ramblings..

Anyways I made my points. Both C and C++ have their strengths. In terms of the OP, I just don't get the big protest against Qt or C++ for that matter.

That is all.