I don't think the TIOBE index is a really accurate measure, because it measures popularity, not use. Chevy Silverado Driver Door Module. 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. Droidjack 4 0 Cracked Iphone. 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 Meta Object Compiler Install Chrome. Go - Wikipedia. This article is about the mobile operating system. Go project and will be coded with Qt and the Mee. Using Qt with Alternative Programming Languages - Part 1. It enables Java developers to use Qt within the Java. It takes advantage of the Qt meta object system. 1, Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2. Simply double- click the downloaded file to install it. Star Free and Update. Webopedia's list of Data File Formats and File Extensions makes it easy to look through thousands of extensions and file formats to find what you need.

• 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. 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. Symphonic Dances From West Side Story Program Notes Haydn. 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.