does Qt is advanced than the Python ?

[rahulvala]

I have used Python .
Now I want to work with Qt .
Does Qt is easy to learn compared to Python ?

[Sorcery-ltd]

No, Qt isn't as easy to learn as python, but not a lot harder. However, you need to learn C++ as well as Qt so it will take a while to become really productive.

Mark

[SoulBlade]

I started learning python ,cuz i got mega-ideas and just need to quickly build them out by myself than get a commercial-developer to do it. But how 'extensive' is Qt compared to PyS60 ; generally, library , and api wise ??

[james1980]

I have used Python .
Now I want to work with Qt .
Does Qt is easy to learn compared to Python ?

I think Qt is harder to learn as compare to python but easier if you compare with the symbian c++.

[Jack Torrance]

I'd say that from a solid C++ background to master Symbian C++ it takes approx 2 years. To master Qt it takes ~6 months.

What it comes to selecting between Python and Qt it of course goes case by case depending on what you want to do and what platforms are you targeting but generally I'd choose Qt due to it's cross-platform promise and pretty extensive API set. And as it's not a runtime there are no efficiency issues.

Cheers,
Jack

[vivainio]

I have used Python .
Now I want to work with Qt .
Does Qt is easy to learn compared to Python ?

Do you know about PyQt? By the time S60 Qt development is mainstream, I'd expect PyQt for S60 to be around as well.

[Jack Torrance]

There are some plans around this are but can't share unfortunately any details. But wouldn't hold my breath while waiting for PyQt.

Cheers,
Jack

[Sorcery-ltd]

There's nothing to stop someone porting PyQt4 themselves against the latest PyS60 release though!

Mark

[JOM]

There's nothing to stop someone porting PyQt4 themselves against the latest PyS60 release though!

Licensing issues, maybe? Seems to depend on Qt for S60 licensing, which is open...

Cheers,

--jouni

[petrib]

Licensing issues, maybe? Seems to depend on Qt for S60 licensing, which is open...

Not any longer:
http://www.nokia.com/A4136001?newsid=1281996

[JOM]

Not any longer:
http://www.nokia.com/A4136001?newsid=1281996

Ok, i need translation

I've read that news release maybe 5 times + several blogs, which basically just copy parts of original text. Here's how I understood it:

1) You can do any kind of sw, including open source will full source code release as well as closed commercial releases.

2) Qt source code will be made available for free for everyone

How about this, what does it mean: "Qt 4.5 will also be available under commercial licensing terms", since most likely this one makes me see ghosts in corners... My question basically is: how much does it cost me to make commercial closed source apps using Qt for S60. Would I need that beforementioned commercial license or not? What can be done without one and what can be done with it (maybe change Qt sources and not release changes)?

Wondering,

--jouni

[ravirdv]

u dont need commercial license for developing closed source, commercial license holders will get technical support

[Sorcery-ltd]

Hi Jouni,

(maybe change Qt sources and not release changes)?

Basically you are spot on with this as the major reason for commercial licensing.

Actually, support is not even an issue since they also announced they'd be providing separate support packages that people could purchase for use with the LGPL version.

There are other conditions to the LGPL which must be satisfied, you'd basically have to acknowledge the fact that you were using the Qt libraries somewhere too (although it needn't be all that public if you don't put your own copyright notice in your application). So, if you don't want anyone to know you're using Qt then you'd need the commercial license too. Static linking is also a problem, but not for Qt on S60 (or most other platforms).

Basically, if you want the full details go read the LGPL v2.1 (I re-read it shortly after the announcement) - your interpretation of it may not match a courts but there has been very little precedent in this area, so your guess is as good as anyone else's.

The other thing to consider is who is going to sue - in this case it would have to be Nokia, the copyright holder. So the important thing is their intention in providing this license. You can judge for yourself how likely they are to persue you in case of minor infringement.

Hope that helps,
Mark

[JOM]

Thanx Mark for the explanation. Have to agree, regardless of what the issues are it's still Nokia who would be the possible suing party and regardless of the legal text their intention seems clear: let people make software

Also found this explanation:
http://www.ics.com/files/docs/Qt_LGPL.pdf

If I understood everything correctly, Nokia has to change the current license to add a special notice about C++ Templates. In any case the intention remains same: free for commercial use as long as certain LGPL requirements are fulfilled, like dynamic linking, copyright notice etc.

Finally happy,

--jouni

[Sorcery-ltd]

IMHO, the templates issue in nonsense and only arises because copyright lawyers are attempting to apply standard text-based copyright law to software, where it doesn't really apply very well.

The debate is that if you use a template rather than deriving from a class, the original code gets compiled into your object file, so the object is a derivative work (note not the new source code). Personally I think it really needs some new legislation, or some legal precedents to be set, to sort out all this mess. The same resolution exists though - what is the intention of the copyright holder, did they use the LGPL because they didn't want you to use templates? No!

Mark