#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# why don't more game programmers use qt?

This topic is 5552 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

I''m currently learning qt (I have an independant study project at school that I have to program for linux) and I''m using qt for it (as using motif really sucks). It is alot easier of an api than motif, mfc, or win32, so why don''t more people use it? It''s cross platform, easy to use, and alot more powerful than glut at any rate. I havent'' yet got it to compile in windows (using tmake -t vcapp whatever.pro -o whatever.dsp), and at first I was getting at error that qt.lib couldn''t be found, so in my .pro file, I enabled .dll''s. Now it''s having an undefined reference to QString something or other. Really pissing me off, but once I figure it out (this is only my third day), I''ll be able to write my programs in windows, then port them to linux for school. Is there any specific reason that more developers don''t use qt?

##### Share on other sites
cost mostly at a guess

##### Share on other sites
Cost would only depend on what you''re doing. For a company that may come into play, but for some guy just sitting around the house writing programs, or a college student, the free edition is just great. I can''t figure out why more tutorials aren''t written using qt.

##### Share on other sites
probably also coz its not widely installed... and i''m sure you need a lisence of some sort to distrubte your stuff... unless its changed since i last looked..

##### Share on other sites
xGoblin, couldnt tell you why more people dont use qt other than cost but i have been learning qt too. I love it. Its simple to understand and alot easier for me to do what I want then mfc. I have yet to try using a graphics API with it yet. If you have, how does it work in comparison to regular windows programming?

##### Share on other sites
I''m familiar with win32 programming, and using mfc. I''ve looked at some motif programming and things of that nature, but nothing I''ve ever used seems to be as nice as qt. It works on like every operating system out there (using the same code with opengl even), it''s far, far, far easier to use than any other API i''ve tried, and it beats out libraries like glut which aren''t nearly as complete as qt, and it is almost just as easy as using glut. I wrote a window with three slider bars, (to adjust mouse sensitivity, brightness, and speed), two buttons (which switch between different cameras) and I have a little text output that displays your fps, yaw, pitch and roll. My windowing part of the program is maybe 50 lines long, believe it or not, and will work on just about any operating system. To get a little opengl window inside of a parent window using win32 is far more tedious, lemme tell you. All I had to do with qt was inherit a QGLWidget into my display class, and use the functions it provides, then just use it like a button. TO make it a child window all I had to do was:

  MyDisplay *mydisp = new MyDisplay(parent, name)

it makes everything so trivial. Glut does the same thing, but is not anywhere close to the functionality of qt. I don''t understand why qt isn''t the latest craze out there. Every tutorial I read is using either glut or win32. Why??? glut may be cross-platform but is relativley weak, and win32 can be pretty complicated, especially for a beginner, and isn''t that much more powerful, unless you just really like to go through and set every item of a PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR, or you just enjoy setting you WNDCLASSEX stlye stuff. I can say I don''t. I''m absolutley sure there has to be some kind of intelligent reason that people aren''t using this. I just can''t figure it out, maybe due to inexperience or something? I dunno.

##### Share on other sites
Because people haven''t heard of it.

##### Share on other sites
because window management is the last thing I worry about on a project.

##### Share on other sites
right... a quick look the the Trolltech website throws up that you must be using the Non-commerical version, which unless i've lost teh ablity to read means that you have to GPL anything you make with it (which as iirc means release source code) which not everyone is gonna want to do.

Also, it only supports VS6, personaly I use VS.Net and VC7, others use other free compilers which it wont work with.

I think that covers it

[edited by - _the_phantom_ on December 8, 2002 1:54:45 AM]

##### Share on other sites
QT's great. Not sure why they haven't released free versions for Windows/OSX though. They needed to make it free under Linux because of the mass of the KDE project. It's certainly a lot nicer than any other tool kit I've used (including GTK+, which is both multi-platorm and free) and certainly MFC.

_the_phantom_: I'm sure QT works with quite a lot of free compilers, since it works with GCC under Linux. It just doesn't integrate the builder into the development environments like it does with VC++6. You can probably get it to work with VC.NET quite easily. And if you create a program with the free version of QT you don't need to GPL your code, but you do need to release it under an open-source licence. If you're developing under Linux, this is just the natural order of things anyway, and it doesn't mean that all of your game must be open-source, just the interface bits.

It also seems like the natural choice for writing tools for your game. These don't have to be released at all.

[edited by - teamonkey on December 8, 2002 5:00:59 PM]

##### Share on other sites
i havent used qt since 1999 but from memory its definitly much better than mfc.
why game programmeurs dont use it?
perhaps theyre like me + have no need for menus/toolbars/dialogs etc a plain window is all i need

http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/kea/kea.html
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html

##### Share on other sites
tbh, when i get my windowing stuff together I''ll proably use WTL as its that might lighter, and as was said above I wont be needing all the extra stuff

##### Share on other sites
People simply don't use Qt because it's not free. The only free licence of QT is available under linux and it hasn't got all features of the commercial Version. (on windows or mac, you can only download a demo available for 30 days)

If you are looking for a great library, multi plateform and free, I suggest you wxWindow. It has got all Qt features (and more), is realy easy to use and like QT, uses looks and feel of the targeted plateform.
(and finally, under linux, you can ask to wxWindow to use looks and feel of GTK, Motif, or X11 where all components are redefined)

http://www.wxwindows.org

[edited by - bestel on December 9, 2002 1:38:36 AM]

##### Share on other sites
There''s also Fox toolkit similar to mfc. I see more gtk than qt projects. I also ruled it out due to cost or gpl requirement. Gtk seems to be widely supported and people already demonstrated that it is usable. On windows platform you got mfc and c#. Mfc/c# are cheap as they come with compiler for 1/10 the price of qt and mfc is used by thousands of people thus is less buggy. I don''t know too many amateurs who plunk down \$1500 bucks for an api especially in linux world when there are good alternatives wxWindows, Fox, gtk+, others. Is qt that much better than anything that''s out? Can you do w/o it? No, and yes imho.

##### Share on other sites
only issue i have with MFC is the large foot print it has, if you can deal without the docs and learning via a bit of hacking then WTL is great, nice and light weight but does take a bit of getting to know