[freedomben]

Take this with a grain of salt because it's been about 10 years since I slung serious C++. Just my opinion of course, but if you go all-in with the Qt libraries, it's a lot better (and safer). Most people only think about Qt as a GUI framework, but it's much, much more than that. It's a very rich set of libraries that do way more than just UI. We actually used Qt for our server too!

So I agree with you, Qt tends to be a lot cleaner than standard C++ (or even C++ with Boost). I highly value consistency in a codebase, and Qt really makes that possible.

[bmitc]

I've only used Qt from Python, but I found that a major downside. Qt wants you to program inside Qt and not within your host language. Take, for example, their approach to Python's asyncio. Instead of integrating with Python's default asyncio, they're writing their own version of it.

[freedomben]

I tried Qt from Python a few times and definitely concur. It always felt like a major paradigm mismatch.

[bluGill]

Modern c++ does some things better than qt, others it is still worse. Just unique ptr is better than qt's parent-child object model (memory management only, parent child is useful for other things)

[thegrim33]

It kind of drives me crazy trying to have a modern C++ codebase which uses smart pointers everywhere, yet every touch point with Qt involves manually allocating memory and passing the pointers into some magical Qt blackbox which hopefully frees the memory when appropriate.

[bluGill]

Most of the time you don't need to do that as qt will work with smart pointers so long as you have create and destroy in the same order. But i agree is annoying. I brought this up with qt last time they visited (my company is one of their larger customers)