Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android GUI IOS Programming Linux

Qt 5.1 Adds Android and iOS Support 81

Posted by samzenpus
from the brand-new dept.
colinneagle writes "This week, the team at Digia rolled out the first alpha release of Qt 5.1, which is slated to have the first round of support for Android and iOS, with full support coming in 5.2. The goal is to make 5.1 completely usable for building complete, shippable apps for both mobile platforms. That means Qt can now be used to build native, smooth applications on Linux, Windows, Android, iOS, MacOS X and even BlackBerry 10, all with an excellent integrated development environment – QtCreator. Coming with version 5.1 is also something called 'Qt Quick Controls' — which is a set of nice, reusable user interface controls. Currently, it is focused on Desktop applications, but is expanding to add touchscreen-specific features. And, importantly, this release also brings 'Qt Sensors' into play. 'Qt Sensors' are pretty much exactly what they sound like — access to hardware sensors on devices where they are available, with built-in motion gesture recognition. Definitely a big plus for Android and iOS applications."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Qt 5.1 Adds Android and iOS Support

Comments Filter:
  • by simula (1032230) on Monday April 08, 2013 @04:18PM (#43395173) Homepage

    Digia and the Qt Project has been exploding with great new work.

    Qt 5.1 is adding initial support for Qt Quick Controls [digia.com] formerly "Desktop Components". These are packaged Qt Quick controls such as sliders and tables with skins for each of the different platforms.

    The Qt Project has just recently started shipping the Qt Installer Framework [digia.com] which is a cross-platform installer framework (that is used by the Qt installers). After managing multiple installers on different platforms for my own open source work, I'm really looking forward to digging into this.

    Another huge project is the new Qt Build System or qbs [digia.com]. This is a replacement for QMake and I'm really excited to see how it shapes up against CMake.

    With the recent advancements in the C++ standard and Qt, it is a very exciting time to be a C++ developer.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      it is a very exciting time to be a C++ developer.

      You now owe me a replacement keyboard and half a can of coke.

    • by loufoque (1400831)

      The right approach to software development is to do one thing and do that thing well. Qt is becoming more and more bloated and duplicates a lot of other better and more specialized tools. It's shaping up to be a framework for everything, almost a variant of the programming language. And Qt still doesn't even use C++03 correctly, why do you expect it to make good use of C++11 or future standards?

      • by jma05 (897351)

        > The right approach to software development is to do one thing and do that thing well.

        There is no right approach. While that is the Unix philosophy, it does not suit every project's needs. Some projects like to have a most functionality to come from a single/few quality assuring source/vendor. This gives consistent quality, less updates to keep track of, consistent documentation, common interfaces across sub-components, one place to ask for help etc.

        > Qt is becoming more and more bloated and duplicat

  • by ClayDowling (629804) on Monday April 08, 2013 @04:20PM (#43395201) Homepage

    There has been somewhat hackish support available for a while to use it on Android. Having official support will be nice. Now I just have to write my killer app and live the lifestyle of the idle rich.

    • Last time I tried it, there was no hardware acceleration and no access to sensors though. Has that changed?

      • by Deus.1.01 (946808)

        Yeah, the QT Sensor module is fully implemented now.

        And all the rage lately has been about hooking rendering to OpenGL.

    • Yeah, it wasn't as bad as all that, but 5.2 will really make it shine. I hope. Hopefully they will do something slicker than Maestro II's need to download a flurry of libraries into your phone every time it encounters a new api.
  • My understanding is that the Qt libraries are on the order of hundreds of megabytes. Bit large for a library on a machine with 16G storage,

    • Re:How heavy is it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by EmperorArthur (1113223) on Monday April 08, 2013 @04:34PM (#43395303)

      That's for everything. Every window decoration you could ever want, every button, etc...
      If you strip out everything that's not being used by the current program, you get something that's much smaller.

    • Re:How heavy is it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08, 2013 @04:35PM (#43395313)

      On Win platform:
      QtCore 2.6MB, QtGui 8.5 MB, QtNetwwork 0.9MB, QtOpenGL 0.8 MB, QtWebkit 13.1MB
      + MSVC++ Runtime libs: 7MB

      So it is in the few 10's MBs range

    • Not for mobile devices. Your understanding is flawed. God I love /. ...
    • by loufoque (1400831)

      I find it funny that some people would find 16GB of storage to be small.

      • It is pretty small if you are storing music or photos on your phone.

        • by loufoque (1400831)

          It still isn't small.
          My phone only has 1GB of data for such media files, and I can still store lots of thing in it.

          • For some definition of "lots". Lots of text, sure. But not lots of pictures or music, unless you are happy with some serious compression losses. In today's world, 16GB of storage is about the minimum acceptable for a phone/tablet/netbook class of device.

            • by loufoque (1400831)

              A music album is 30MB. 1GB still allows more than 30 albums.
              That's enough for listening to music on the go.

              • It's enough if you want to faff about with managing your music all the time, but it's definitely not "lots". Space for "lots" of music to me would be over 50GB. My (legally acquired) music collection was something like 80GB, before I started using Spotify.

                • by loufoque (1400831)

                  You should store your music collection on a real hdd, not on a smartphone...

                  • I do have my old collection on an HDD. Now I use Spotify. So at home I don't need to store anything. I cache my "starred" list and some albums on my phone for playing when out and about. Currently that's just over 1000 tracks.

  • QT has some very cool stuff, some nice libraries/utilities that allow you to program the algorithmic part of some app in it and use it everywhere. That part is great.

    Problem is, QT is not aimed for app developers, because no way someone that wants to release an app for profit would indulge in this almost pornographic way of cross platforming. QT just has all these images of controllers from the platforms it runs on, and them puts them on top of it's implementation to have a similar look of the platform it's

    • by caseih (160668) on Monday April 08, 2013 @09:10PM (#43397439)

      Sorry but you're full of it. Hate to break it to you but that's how all UI libraries work by definition! On Windows there is no standard widget set that everyone uses, an no agreement on how a widget should behave. Every framework has their own. MFC, WinForms, whatever MS Office uses, Wordperfect, etc. They all have their own ideas of what a widget looks like and does. MS Office has traditionally shipped it's own widget set with every release. Buttons, scroll bars, dialog boxes, the works. All of these uis use the Windows Theming API to give them common bitmaps to draw, and Qt is no different. Thus a Qt app absolutely looks and acts as good as any other widget toolkit on Windows.

      On Mac also, Qt uses the Cocoa native apis to draw widgets, and then tries very hard to follow Mac standards to make them act natural, and to a very large extent they succeed. True on Mac people's idea of fidelity is at a very high standard, or so I've been led to believe.

      Maybe your experiences have solely been on Mac where the fidelity wasn't as good in the past. I can tell your experiences with Qt were not on Windows, though.

      On linux, of course, well Qt does its own thing, unless you have it use Gtk themes, where it does a very good job of looking and acting like my other Gtk apps.

      In short you are definitely wrong about Qt. If you're right about Qt, then Winforms, MFC, MS Office are all just as unacceptable as Qt, as far as look and feel goes. There is no other way to do cross-platform ui toolkits. Don't even mention wxWidgets, because wxWidgets just thunks through to yet another toolkit, though it's provided by Microsoft on Windows so you would probably argue it is the one true widget set, even though precious few applications use it these days.

      • by jbssm (961115)

        Sorry but you're full of it. Hate to break it to you but that's how all UI libraries work by definition!

        Sorry, but you are full of it.

        Good implementations of cross platform development UI libraries use the native UI toolkit of the platform. Things like SWIG or Appcelerator Titanium use the platform native UI, so when you tell me that kind of thing doesn't exist, you are either ignorant or you are willingly putting out false facts in order to justify your opinion.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        On Windows there is no standard widget set that everyone uses, an no agreement on how a widget should behave. Every framework has their own. MFC, WinForms, whatever MS Office uses, Wordperfect, etc.

        There are standard widgets provided by the OS, and everyone who uses them will produce apps which look the same, absent customization. There are alternatives, but that doesn't change the fact.

        On Mac also, Qt uses the Cocoa native apis to draw widgets, and then tries very hard to follow Mac standards to make them act natural, and to a very large extent they succeed. True on Mac people's idea of fidelity is at a very high standard, or so I've been led to believe.

        You've been led astray. Last time I looked Apple was using no less than three themes, with iTunes notably using its own. They do all behave the same as far as I can tell, but they're still not the same.

        In short you are definitely wrong about Qt. If you're right about Qt, then Winforms, MFC, MS Office are all just as unacceptable as Qt, as far as look and feel goes.

        That's provably true, since Microsoft is the poster child for the API-of-the-week club. How many different APIs have p

        • by McLoud (92118)

          On Windows there is no standard widget set that everyone uses, an no agreement on how a widget should behave. Every framework has their own. MFC, WinForms, whatever MS Office uses, Wordperfect, etc.

          There are standard widgets provided by the OS, and everyone who uses them will produce apps which look the same, absent customization. There are alternatives, but that doesn't change the fact.

          Really? So how to I use those nice office widgets like the excel pivot or word rich text editor (since the one I can use in MFC is crap) in my own native MFC application?

          • OLE embedding? (ducks)

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            There are standard widgets provided by the OS, and everyone who uses them will produce apps which look the same, absent customization. There are alternatives, but that doesn't change the fact.

            Really? So how to I use those nice office widgets like the excel pivot or word rich text editor (since the one I can use in MFC is crap) in my own native MFC application?

            Slow down, I can see you're upset, but it's not worth using the wrong word over. The existence of custom controls beyond the standard controls used in Microsoft applications in no way contradicts my statement. You may try again, but I wouldn't if I were in your shoes.

  • What about haiku? You know, for Qupzilla

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson

Working...