Qt Meta Object Compiler Install Java

Colored Pencil Painting Bible Pdf Download. I don't think the TIOBE index is a really accurate measure, because it measures popularity, not use. Comparing amount of code in open source repositories like GitHub, Bitbucket, Codeplex, and Sourceforge would give more accurate measurements.

(And I believe those more accurate measurements put C and C++ in #1 and #2 spots -- Java has an unfair advantage in the TIOBE index because it's used for freshman college courses, and new programmers make more buzz than experienced ones do) – Jul 1 '11 at 17:22 8. I don't really intend this to be a bashing answer, but these are the reasons I do not personally use Qt. There are plenty of good things to say about it -- namely that the API works most of the time, and that it does seamlessly bridge platforms. But I do not use Qt, because: • In some cases, it just doesn't look like native programs look. Designing a single UI for all platforms inherently is not going to look right when moved from machine to machine, for various visual styling reasons.

For example, on Mac machines, split bars are usually relatively thick, and buttons are small and rounded with icons. On Windows machines, split bars are typically narrow, and buttons are more textual, with more square designs. Just because you can write one UI for every platform does not mean that you should for most applications. • Qt is not a C++ library. It requires a separate compilation step, which makes the build process much more complicated when compared with most other libraries. • As a result of (2), C++ IDEs and tools can flag Qt expressions as errors, because they do not understand Qt's specifics.

This almost forces use of QtCreator or a textual only editor like vim. • Qt is a large amount of source, which must be present and preinstalled on any machine you use before compiling. This can make setting up a build environment much more tedious. • It's available only under LGPL, which makes it difficult to use single-binary-deployment when one needs to release under a more restrictive or less restrictive license. • It produces extremely large compiled binaries when compared with similarly written 'plain ol' native applications' (excepting of course applications written for KDE). @Dehumanizer: There's the LGPL license, and there's the commercial license. The commercial license is thousands of dollars on the part of the licensee, and does not allow redistribution, etc.

For open source projects under liberal licenses like BSD, MIT, or Boost, where the authors aren't making tons of money and they wish to release their code under a liberal license, a dependency on LGPL is unreasonable, but the developers in question generally cannot afford commercial licensing. – Jul 1 '11 at 6:37 26. #6 is the biggest reason I avoid it. I mean, I don't want a big, clunky program, and I don't like being bound to a specific license, but it's really the lack of a good, native look-and-feel that's a deal-breaker for me. Recent versions of OSX and Windows specifically have done a fantastic job of making their native interfaces pretty, fast, and functional, and I'd rather leverage all the work they've already done for me; I find that many programs without a native look feel cheap and hacky to me (not always, but it wierds me out a bit). – Jul 1 '11 at 7:24 15.

Your number 6 should have been number 1. This is by far the biggest problem with Qt. In many cases, it simply does not use the native APIs.

Qt Tutorial - Download as PDF File. System features • Q_OBJECT macro must be added into class declaration • Qt’s meta object compiler. GUI trong Java. Meta Object Compiler (moc) The Meta Object Compiler (moc) is a useful addition to Qt. It is a tool that saves a lot of work, and it is very simple to use.

I like my software to look native. Users like that, too. I've never seen a Mac application created with Qt that looked like a Mac application.

Neither have any other Mac users, and they're picky about that sort of thing. You lose all the benefit of it being 'cross-platform' if you're only using it to create Linux applications, which is about the only place it looks native because there really is nothing native. – Jul 1 '11 at 9:07 33. As people say, each tool fits to each problem and situation. But if you're C++ programmer, Qt is your framework.

We develop a complex medical imaging commercial application, and Qt holds on. I don't say that the 'cons' that people say about it are false, but I have the feeling that they don't have tried Qt for a long time (its continously improving on each new version.) And, mostly all of the issues they comment are not a problem if you take care. UI platform inconsistency: only if you use the UI widgets 'as they are', with no customization or custom art. Qt preprocessor overload: Only if you abuse of signal-slot mechanism, or QObject inheritance, when there is no really need. By the way, We still write applications in C#.NET, and been doing it for a long time. So I think I have enouch perspective. As I said, each tool for each situation, but Qt is with no doubt a consistent and useful framework.

@Tom - poor documentation, especially for the new stuff. Whatsup Gold 14 2 358 Keygen Photoshop more. The AUI components are barely documented at all with large sections missing, making it difficult to use in a production environment. The documentation for the event process is fundamentally in error with regard to the path that is followed, on win32 at least. Spent a lot of time yelling at the computer, 'This should be working!!!' Before getting down into the deep processing code to find out that what WX does isn't following the docs and what I was doing would NEVER work. – Jul 1 '11 at 16:57.

I was also disturbed by the acceptance of the property grid library into the main line. I used that library and it showed numerous, fundamental design flaws in addition to actual lack of knowledge on behalf of the programmer who wrote it (called virtual functions in constructors for example). It, and the poor state of AUI, showed a trend to poorer standards. I'm also not a big fan of static event tables, though at least there's another way to respond to events.unlike MFC, which WX is just too much like to be exciting anyway.

– Jul 1 '11 at 16:59. Some of it is licensing. See for some of the licensing history. Until 2000, people who cared strongly about open source, did not use Qt. (This was, in fact, the original motivation for the development of Gnome.) Until 2005, people who wanted to be able to release free software for Windows did not use Qt.

Even after that date people who wanted free software under something other than the GPL, simply did not have the option of using Qt. Thus any free software project that is older than those dates, couldn't use Qt.

And, of course, people writing proprietary code had to pay for the privilege. Furthermore it is not as it there is a shortage of other options.

For instance,, and are all open source, cross-platform toolkits. Furthermore for a long time Windows was so dominant on the desktop that a lot of software was content to only run on Windows. If you install the Microsoft toolchain, it is easier just to use Microsoft's proprietary stuff than it is to worry about anything else, and a lot of programmers did just that. One reason to not use Qt is that if you only write for one architecture, such as Windows, you may want to use C#/.NET (or Cocoa on Mac) because they will invariably be able to take advantage of the latest bells-and-whistles of the OS. If you are writing cross-platform apps, then you may already be heavily vested in another technology such as Java (i.e. You work in a 'Java Shop'). Your choice of technology might be dictated by the ecosystem in which you are developing, such as language-specific APIs.

In these sorts of cases, minimizing the number of technologies may be beneficial. A third reason that I can think of is that Qt is based around C++, and C++ is a comparatively difficult/dangerous language to program in. I think it is a language for professionals.

If you need to have top performance and are capable of being meticulous, then C++ is probably still the best game in town. Actually, Qt ameliorates a lot of the memory management problems if you set things up to fall out of scope. Also, Qt itself does a good job insulating the user from a lot of the nasty C++ issues. Every language and framework has its pros and cons.

It is a very, very complicated issue that usually can be summarized by the addage often seen in diners: Speed, Quality, and Price (but you can only pick two). Although the rules say I should keep focused on answering the question, I do want to rebut some of the issues raised by Billy ONeal, who I think does a good job summarizing the commonly cited reasons to not use Qt: • Qt is indeed a C++ library/framework/header files. It is augmented by a macro processor (moc) which enables signals and slots, among many other things. It transforms additional macro commands (such as Q_OBJECT) so that classes have introspection and all sorts of other goodies that you might think of as adding Objective-C functionality to C++. If you know enough about C++ to be offended by this lack of purity, i.e. You are a pro, then 1) don't use Q_OBJECT and its ilk or 2) be grateful that it does this, and program around the very limited corner cases where this causes a problem. For folks who say 'Use Boost for signals and slots!'

Then I would retort that you are exchanging one 'problem' for another. Boost is huge, and it has its own commonly-cited issues such as poor documentation, horrendous API, and cross-platform horrors (think old compilers like gcc 3.3 and big iron compilers like AIX). • For editor support, this also follows from 1, I somewhat agree. Actually, Qt Creator is IMHO the best graphical C++ editor, period, even if you don't use the Qt stuff. Many professional programmers use emacs and vim. Also, I think Eclipse handles the additional syntax. Thus, no problems with the Qt macros (Q_OBJECT) or signals/slots additions.

You will probably not find these macros in Visual Studio, because (I concede) they are additions to C++. But by and large, C#/.NET folks aren't going to be using Qt anyway, due to the fact that they have a lot of the functionality covered with their own proprietary techniques. • As to the size of the Qt source, so long as it compiles overnight, who cares? I compiled Qt 4 on my dual core Macbook in 'less than overnight.' I certainly hope this is not what is driving your decision to use or not use a particular technology. If this is truly a problem, then you can download the precompiled SDKs for Mac, Linux, and Windows from the Qt website.

• Licensing is available in three choices: 1) Proprietary license in case you wish to modify Qt ITSELF and not share, or hide the fact that one is using Qt and not willing to give attribution (could be very important for branding and image!) 2) GPL and 3) LGPL. Yes, there are issues with static linking (rolling all of Qt into the binary) -- but I think that's more because one can't peek inside and notice that you are using Qt (attribution!). I tried to buy a proprietary license from Digia, and they told me 'for what you are doing, you really don't need it.' From a business who is in the business of selling licenses. • The size of the binary/bundle is because you have to distribute the Qt stuff to folks who don't have it: Windows already has? The Visual Studio stuff or you have to install the run-time.

Mac already comes with the enormous Cocoa, and can be dynamically linked. Though I don't do a lot of distribution, I have never found much issue with distributing the ~50 megabyte static file (which I can make even smaller with some of the binary stripper/compression utilities like UPX). I just don't care enough to do this, but if bandwidth were ever an issue, I would add a UPX step to my build script. • What defines 'Native Look and Feel?' I think 'most' would agree that Mac comes closest to unified look and feel. But here I sit, looking at Safari, iTunes, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, Pages, etc. And they look nothing alike despite the fact that they are made by the OS vendor.

I think the 'feel' aspect is more relevant: widget styling, responsiveness, etc. If you care about responsiveness, then here is a good reason to use C++ rather than Java, or some other highly dynamic language.

(Objective C also rocks, but I'm trying to dispel myths about Qt) In summary, it's a complicated issue. But I would like to point out that I think there are less reasons to 'not use Qt' as one might think based on myths and decade-out-of-date information. I agree with nearly all of the reasons discussed above however a lot of people here have said they wouldn't use Qt because of the extra overhead that it brings with it. I disagree with that because all the most common languages today (Java, C# and Python) carry a fair bit of overhead themselves.

Secondly, Qt makes programming with C++ so easy and straight-forward that it makes up for the extra resources it uses. I've come across quite a few console applications written in Qt rather than standard C++ because of the ease in which they can be written. I would say that the productivity of Qt is greater than that of C/C++ but less than languages like Python. The reason is simple: it does not have good bindings to all mainstream languages, and it is not magically always appropriate for the job at hand.

Use the right tool for the job. If I'm writing a simple command-line application, why would I bloat that up with Qt just for the sake of it? As a more general answer (which I can give because I'm relevant here), some programmers will simply never have given it a go and decided to use it. In some cases there is no particular reason other than the programmer has never found a need for it and looked into it. This genuinely isn't an attempt to start a flame war, I just wanted to address some of the points. Probably the real reason that Qt isn't more widely used is that it's C++ and fewer people use c++ for desktop apps. Qt is not a C++ library.

It requires a separate compilation step, which makes the build process much more complicated when compared with most other libraries. The vs-addin for visual studio does this automatically as does Qt's own commandline make process. The resource compiler used to build the dialogs for MFC is also a separate step but that's still c++. Qt is a large amount of source, which must be present and preinstalled on any machine you use before compiling. This can make setting up a build environment much more tedious. There is a binary download for each version of visual studio and the build from source is a single command.

I don't see SDK source size is so much of a deal these days. Visual studio now installs all the C++ libs rather than letting you pick and choose, as a result the install size of the compiler is >1Gb. It's available only under LGPL, which makes it difficult to use single-binary-deployment when one needs to release under a more restrictive or less restrictive license. The LGPL only applies to the lib, it doesn't affect your code.

Yes it means you have to ship DLLs rather than a single binary (unless you pay), but in a world where you need to download a Java runtime or a.Net update for a tiny util this isn't such a big deal. It's also less of a problem on platforms with a single ABI so that other Qt apps can share the libs. In some cases, it just doesn't look like native programs look. Designing a single UI for all platforms inherently is not going to look right when moved from machine to machine, for various visual styling reasons. It's supposed to use native widgets and themes.

I must admit I do mostly technical apps so my users aren't too concerned about style. Especially on windows the new fashion for having everything style itself as a smartphone widget means that there is less and less of a standard anyway. Quite a lot of large software companies build commercial applications in C++ but I'm not aware of very many that use QT. So, while I understand that non-C++ developers might avoid QT, there are other reasons to avoid QT even when you are writing a C++ app, it would seem. In fact, there really isn't any cross platform language and GUI toolkit that I can't find fault with. It seems that cross-platform development is JUST PLAIN HARD, and that doing it well is never easy or free, and that the promise QT makes (Write your GUI once and reuse that GUI everywhere) isn't enough. – Nov 20 '12 at 19:45.

Most desktop C++ software is either in MFC because it started 20years ago or uses an internal toolkit started 20years ago to avoid MFC (eg MS-Office or Autocad). I doubt very much is being written in C++/CLR with WPF. But even without cross-platform considerations I find Qt the best (or least worst!) desktop toolkit. Like most people we are moving toward a webby front end (possibly in QtQuick/QML) and a C++ server backend - which will probably use Qt signals/slots but no gui – Nov 20 '12 at 19:52.