[lrossi]

I worked on some Linux apps in another life. I switched to Qt at some point. It was a breath of fresh air! Qt is very reliable and well documented. One can be very productive with it.

I think a lot of people have a bad opinion about it as they confuse it with KDE. While KDE does use Qt, the two projects are otherwise independent.

I’ve also looked inside the Qt code base a few times. It’s very tidy and quite easy to read. You can tell that their team is very experienced. I used to read their blog as well, they had a lot of good articles.

I really hope that they can continue to survive financially. Selling a mostly open source library is not very profitable.

[ldng]

The problem with Qt is The Company. They have a tendency to cater to their exclusive needs and not bothering much with Linux. A bit like Mozilla. Yet they're claiming to be fully cross-platform. They pushed 6 with regressions.

Qt is undoubtedly interesting but really have steering issues.

[pjmlp]

Here is the thing, GNU/Linux desktop developers aren't those who pays their bills, so they cater to the OS vendors and OEMs that actually pay them.

[ldng]

And I fine with that. But then drop the multi-platform bullet point from the marketing brochure. It becomes a lie at some point.

[baybal2]

> They pushed 6 with regressions.

Gtk pushes every minor version with regressions.

Qt looks quite good in comparison.

[ldng]

Well if you don't count missing modules as regression, sure ...