Crossbones+ - Reputation: 7357
Posted 31 December 2011 - 06:05 PM
Anyone here used both?
Is it true that Qt is now free to use in your own projects? e.g. SDL or SFML
Meaning do I need to pay to use it in my own projects, even if they are commerical?
You've never had to pay to use QT in commercial software. (The GPL (Which QT used a very long time ago) doesn't forbid commercial use or selling binaries, it only requires you to provide the sourcecode to your customers under the same permissive license)
QT currently uses the LGPL(Which is a bit more permissive than the GPL) v2.1 (Same as version 1.2 of SDL) which works fairly well unless you:
1) Want to distribute your software on a platform that prevents the end user from modifying the LGPL portion of the software, (iOS and consoles for example)
2) Intend to make significant improvements to the LGPL licensed library and wish to keep those secret.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
Senior Moderators - Reputation: 17332
Posted 01 January 2012 - 11:48 AM
So anyone here prefer one or the other?
Speaking from (somewhat limited) experience of the two: QT strikes me as both more feature complete and more polished. However, it's more than just a library - QT includes several custom extensions to the C++ language, that require the use of their own 'pre-compiler', so you also tend to become tied into their build system/ecosystem in a way that I don't personally favour.
You might also consider GTK+ in relation to these two, though I find that their support for Mac/Windows is not as perfect as one could hope for.
My personal preference would be to avoid monolithic UI toolkits entirely. Go with something like Adobe Air or Mozilla's Prism, and build your UI in HTML/CSS/Ajax with a local loop server to communicate with the backend...
Members - Reputation: 120
Posted 07 January 2012 - 02:36 PM
Qt has been free since version 4.5.0 and it's at 4.8.0 right now (just released 4.8.0). It has support for OpenGL like QShader, QMatrix4x4, etc. Although you might have to extend it somewhat. It also just recently added a class for raw gl functions.
I haven't used wxWidgets in a long time, but I didn't even like it then. I cannot stand the message map garbage like you see in MFC. It is too bloody ugly. wxWidgets string class isn't that powerful as QString. wxWidget's networking class is really awful. You don't get that many options/signals to be notified of. You will have to implement most yourself. It doesn't even have SSL support afaik, nor does it support proxy out of the box. While Qt has Udp, SSL, Http, Proxy, Local sockets, etc. Personally the documentation is hard to navigation and just ugly. The build system isn't any better. You have to manually edit a configuration file to set it up. Sometimes it just a pita to do. Qt's favour more of the autotool like ./configure -ssl --no-webkit, etc, but it doesn't use autotools.
Moderators - Reputation: 5160
Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:45 PM
As to the freedom level, you have been able to use QT for a very long time but the Designer (a pretty integral part) if used generally triggered the GPL such that you had to buy a license just for the designer or open source even internal tools. This is the biggest change made in the last couple years, the designer no longer triggers the commercial clause, and makes the platform appropriate even for internal use only if you need something quick and easy to use for GUI systems.
Members - Reputation: 458
Posted 14 January 2012 - 05:15 PM
I would personally highly recommend Qt for GUI development, especially if you use C++ or Python (PyQt, Pyside). In the past, I have used wxWidgets, GTK+, FLTK, Fox and Qt in C++, PyQt, Tk and PyGTK in Python and Swing in Java and out of all of those, Qt is my favorite one.
Members - Reputation: 1032
Posted 27 January 2012 - 08:51 AM
It's true that it kind of is a whole development environment in itself, with modifications made to C++, but that's not that different to say using .Net/Windows Forms with C++. It's still easy to get it to compile on Linux using the standard make system. Qt Creator is a perfectly good IDE (though it's apparently possible to use Qt with Visual Studio?)
Actually, ISTR at one time Qt was only free for Linux, but Windows required the proprietary licence ( http://en.wikipedia....mework)#History confirms this). Although yes, that's old news now.
You've never had to pay to use QT in commercial software.
Members - Reputation: 2137
Posted 27 January 2012 - 12:48 PM