Should Xojo move to Qt?

Over the last year, I’ve been doing a lot of cross-platform C++ development along with lots of Xojo stuff. In C++, my GUI toolkit of choice has quickly become Qt. On Linux, Qt is becoming the de facto standard GUI toolkit with GNOME losing more and more marketshare as time goes by. On Windows, while they use their own toolkit, Qt works amazingly well and allows easy cross platform look and feel with very little work.

Is it time for Xojo to move to Qt to enable easier cross-platform development or is this not even an issue?

Qt is nice, and would be my preferred choice over GTK+ as well, except that we’re a commercial product and would have to pay an enormous royalty to use and cover uses of our Qt based framework.

That’s very true, William and that would be a concern. But, as I understand it, TrollTech is open to some sort of volume licensing where Xojo could purchase a general license that would allow all Xojo users to use Qt without having to purchase their own license. Personally, I wouldn’t mind paying more for Xojo just to have access to Qt. They could defer the costs by average raising the price.

We’d need a redistributable license so you could build apps that also included Qt frameworks - thats usually not the kind of license that most vendors have so they have “special” pricing for our use case & it tends to be exorbitant as they miss everyone using Xjo as a possibly licensee.
I think this falls in the “not a serious consideration as no one could afford Xojo if we did” category.

We’ve looked at licenses from other vendors for similar use & simply could not justify the commensurate price increase that would be required.

Thanks for the feedback Norman. I didn’t think it would really be a serious consideration. Just one of those ‘nice to have’s’ I guess.

Sure but you’d have to raise the price on an annual basis by - well last time I looked - for 3 platforms it was 5500 euros
That may have changed since they became digia but I would not expect it to have changed a lot

[quote=60520:@Norman Palardy]Sure but you’d have to raise the price on an annual basis by - well last time I looked - for 3 platforms it was 5500 euros
That may have changed since they became digia but I would not expect it to have changed a lot[/quote]

It hasn’t changed much. Licensing is still horrible. But what about having it as an option for enterprise licensees? Since they tend to work on large larger projects, the costs might not be too crazy out of line.

That’d mean two separate frameworks - one Qt based and one not
I doubt it

Oh well, a guy can dream. lol Besides, we’ll have iOS soon and nobody’s going to worry about desktop anymore lol

Before Nokia made the catastrophic decision to partner with Microsoft they bought Trolltech and released Qt under the LGPL to encourage developers to use it. I understand that’s still the case now Qt’s under the control of Digia.

If I understand it correctly that means you can use it for your closed source commercial product so long as you only link dynamically.

[quote=60528:@Steve Wilson]Before Nokia made the catastrophic decision to partner with Microsoft they bought Trolltech and released Qt under the LGPL to encourage developers to use it. I understand that’s still the case now Qt’s under the control of Digia.

If I understand it correctly that means you can use it for your closed source commercial product so long as you only link dynamically.[/quote]
This is true so we do have that option. When we originally researched using GTK+ or Qt we had to settle for GTK+ since Qt was not LGPL back then (pre-2009).

iOS and Android get official support with Qt 5.2

I just read the license requirements for Qt 5 and it is correct that so long as the “proprietary” (a poor choice of word for “Commercial”) app compiles against the Qt SDK / libraries dynamically, it is under the LGPL just like the Linux C library GLIBC. This would allow the use of Qt for the underlying framework in Xojo to not cause a rise n the cost of licenses aside from the additional development time to rewrite (at least the Linux) frameworks to use it. And we all know that William just sits around drinking tea all day … :wink:

It’s only if you want commercial level developer support and the ability to statically link your apps that you need to purchase the Qt commercial license.

Should Xojo move to Qt?

I don’t think so.

I don’t know the details but couldn’t Qt’s parent company (digia) change the licensing at any time and destroy Xojo’s business in such a case? Either by blocking the ability to use their framework or introducing unreasonably high costs.
We’ve seen both higher costs and blocking of competing products from Xojo’s amended licensing in recent years.

If that possibility exists then it’s obviously a bad choice.

If you want Qt’s framework ability then why not just take the time to learn Qt?

Edit - D’oh, I’m such a troll tool - I didn’t notice the user name on this …

They can only legally change the license on new versions. No company can legally change the license terms on a product that you have already purchased / received.

In much the same way, the GTK folks could decide to make the next release licensed under the GPL instead of the LGPL and we would be in the same position.

The worst that would happen in either case is that the new version would not be available.

But the changes didn’t affect your existing versions.

Someone please explain this to me. I do not understand the benefit out of this? Doesn’t Xojo already have easy enough cross platform support or does he mean the development of Xojo would be quicker if they used Qt?

THANKS

It should not be.

The point was outlined in Anthony’s original post - GTK+ has been getting far less love in the Linux world than Qt over the past year or so (Qt is the base SDK for KDE, by the way). His question was related to this and starting a communication discussing the possibility of Xojo moving from GTK+ to Qt.

It also could provide the ability to use the Qt elements on all three platforms (and then some) so that the efforts behind creating a more equal cross platform set of frameworks is easier to maintain after they are created.

As Michel says, it’s not a real issue, just an idea being floated for discussion.

Ok I’m putting in a feature request for a new channel called “Armchair quarterbacking” :stuck_out_tongue:

“Armchair Framework Development” would be more appropriate.

But, I will have to admit, an IDE that creates compiled Qt apps, but based on the friendliness of the Xojo language WOULD be a killer tool to add to my arsenal.

(Funny, Apple autocorrect just recommended Tojo when I typed Xojo above)…