> I think the Qt Company is vague about it on purpose, they want to sell licenses of course. I just hope their agreement with KDE never ends.
Yep, I agree. And I hope so too.
> I also think that the vast majority of people that complain about the lack of "native look" are bad takes from people that don't actually ship apps professionally and listen to their customers
Ding ding ding. Exactly. I would argue that most Qt developers aren't targeting the same audience that native iOS developers target, for example, which causes all Qt apps in the wild to look embarrassingly ugly and out of place. The Qt Company's own lack of taste in design (and their examples) doesn't contribute. It's only when developers with a strong taste for aesthetics and for creating experiences that delights people will take on Qt to develop apps, we will see and be able to show the world the power of Qt. I hope to be part of this change, I'm trying to push Qt limits with every new app I make. And honestly, QML is just an amazing joy to program in. Here's a cool window animation you can do in 1 minute using QML:
What we also need is to create a set of beautiful, easy to use components that work out-of-the-box for developers to tinker with. This is very lacking in the Qt ecosystem compared to other frameworks.
The gist I'm trying to get at is that Qt is not the limiting factor, the limiting factor are developers whose both their target users don't care about aesthetics (or so they think), and developers who themselves lack a good taste (or the know how) for good design.
Not sure about the difference between LGPL v2 and v3, but like you said, if you're a big company, paying for the license is a non-starter (and also helps fund Qt development so why not?), but for almost all developers the LGPL version should be more than enough.
Yep, I agree. And I hope so too.
> I also think that the vast majority of people that complain about the lack of "native look" are bad takes from people that don't actually ship apps professionally and listen to their customers
Ding ding ding. Exactly. I would argue that most Qt developers aren't targeting the same audience that native iOS developers target, for example, which causes all Qt apps in the wild to look embarrassingly ugly and out of place. The Qt Company's own lack of taste in design (and their examples) doesn't contribute. It's only when developers with a strong taste for aesthetics and for creating experiences that delights people will take on Qt to develop apps, we will see and be able to show the world the power of Qt. I hope to be part of this change, I'm trying to push Qt limits with every new app I make. And honestly, QML is just an amazing joy to program in. Here's a cool window animation you can do in 1 minute using QML:
https://custom-downloads.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/qml-anim...
What we also need is to create a set of beautiful, easy to use components that work out-of-the-box for developers to tinker with. This is very lacking in the Qt ecosystem compared to other frameworks.
The gist I'm trying to get at is that Qt is not the limiting factor, the limiting factor are developers whose both their target users don't care about aesthetics (or so they think), and developers who themselves lack a good taste (or the know how) for good design.
Not sure about the difference between LGPL v2 and v3, but like you said, if you're a big company, paying for the license is a non-starter (and also helps fund Qt development so why not?), but for almost all developers the LGPL version should be more than enough.