Sure QT can create cross platform UIs, but with a $300 yearly price tag for one developer and no support.
How can a framework that is developed openly, for free, in which multiple companies have built successful businesses on and millions of people use products powered by it be a 'disgrace'? Because people like you judge a language that was created 20 years ago on the properties that it had back then, not today.
Also, I just checked and you can find more than one laptop with 16gb RAM and i7 processor for less than $1000 USD on Newegg. I find your claim about not being able to run those apps dubious - because I'm running about 20 tabs in Chrome, Spotify, Steam, Discord and 6 other things on 4.5gb RAM right now. Maybe you wouldn't be so salty and a bit more productive if you weren't sitting there choking on budget hardware.
I'm not choking on budget hardware, but Slack is the second biggest energy drain on my machine -- behind Safari. I have dozens of tabs open in Safari right now, and it's only a bit ahead of just Slack in energy impact. My computer remains responsive, and useful, and gets a solid amount of time on battery precisely because I simply refuse to use Electron-based apps (unless I'm literally being paid to, as in the case of Slack).
The LGPL version of Qt can also be used in commercial proprietary software. You have to provide only the source code of the Qt libraries, not of your code, and you can sell your software (and only the Qt libraries, which are public anyway, can be redistributed by your users).
The licensing fee argument was valid back when the Open Source version of Qt was QPL- or GPL-licensed, but not anymore.
PS: Oh, and if you cannot use LGPL code, then you cannot use Electron either, because it contains LGPL code from WebKit that survives in Blink/Chromium. And it is actually harder to comply with the LGPL requirements for Electron than for Qt, because Electron upstream does not help you, they do not even mention the LGPL on their licensing page.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Sure QT can create cross platform UIs, but with a $300 yearly price tag for one developer and no support.
How can a framework that is developed openly, for free, in which multiple companies have built successful businesses on and millions of people use products powered by it be a 'disgrace'? Because people like you judge a language that was created 20 years ago on the properties that it had back then, not today.
Also, I just checked and you can find more than one laptop with 16gb RAM and i7 processor for less than $1000 USD on Newegg. I find your claim about not being able to run those apps dubious - because I'm running about 20 tabs in Chrome, Spotify, Steam, Discord and 6 other things on 4.5gb RAM right now. Maybe you wouldn't be so salty and a bit more productive if you weren't sitting there choking on budget hardware.
I'm not choking on budget hardware, but Slack is the second biggest energy drain on my machine -- behind Safari. I have dozens of tabs open in Safari right now, and it's only a bit ahead of just Slack in energy impact. My computer remains responsive, and useful, and gets a solid amount of time on battery precisely because I simply refuse to use Electron-based apps (unless I'm literally being paid to, as in the case of Slack).
The LGPL version of Qt can also be used in commercial proprietary software. You have to provide only the source code of the Qt libraries, not of your code, and you can sell your software (and only the Qt libraries, which are public anyway, can be redistributed by your users).
The licensing fee argument was valid back when the Open Source version of Qt was QPL- or GPL-licensed, but not anymore.
PS: Oh, and if you cannot use LGPL code, then you cannot use Electron either, because it contains LGPL code from WebKit that survives in Blink/Chromium. And it is actually harder to comply with the LGPL requirements for Electron than for Qt, because Electron upstream does not help you, they do not even mention the LGPL on their licensing page.