Qt posts to HN never include a single technical comment. It is unfortunate, but I suppose that's mostly due to the particular subset of programmers that visits HN.
Salivate over bullet points on a release announcement when we treat every update as maintenance to a core featureset that's been sufficient since Qt 4.8? Jump into a tangent about the meta object compiler on a release announcement? Talk about the translation system apropos of nothing?
The only things that matter here to me now are if the license details change, if they made breaking design changes or deprecated features.
For instance.
> when we treat every update as maintenance to a core featureset that's been sufficient since Qt 4.8?
Or discuss why this is true for 'we'.
> Talk about the translation system apropos of nothing?
How is that more nothing than license details?
They do whatever is needed, mostly with commercial software, and then leave to home, where their hobbies are completely unrelated to coding.
In what concerns Qt 6, I care about the multiple 3D backend, C++17 and the upcoming QML to C++ compiler.
It seems like you somehow think paid shitty software was / is better than free shitty software. Mind that free shitty software has its upsides too.
And counterpoint: People don't hate intellij like they hate oracle or Qt. People hate takeover by suits.
Speaking of which, if eventually Google ends up buying them, lets see how much love is left.
We all know there's a dark matter of enterprise programmers, out of which a good portion is perfectly capable, but just doing it as work 9-5. But that's not what we expect to see on HN/Reddit/open source projects.
You seem to not like that dev tools are not a sustainable business today. That was kind of inevitable. Using paid dev tools alienates contributors in open source development, and students/3rd world can't afford them, and lot of paid tools are specialized to some domains (think SAP). Doesn't help that proprietary vendors try to lock down stuff and lot of rent seeking behavior (Oracle, qt company)..
Atlassian made some steps in lowering this barrier of entry, and built a pretty good business IMO, though not much developer specific.
If there's anything to learn, unless there's an app store like low barrier to entry platform for dev tools with student discounts, free trials etc.. people may learn paying for high quality developer tools.
Somehow a culture of people that feels entitled not to pay for their tools has sprung off, killing a whole industry that naturally only focus on enterprise customers.
Wth everyone trying to kill GPL and its derived licenses, this will eventually be a thing of the past, then everyone will just suck it up with the demo version, BSD/MIT license, or shell out for the commercial version.
Why would Cmake eliminate the need for Qt's moc? Cmake is a build system/makefile generator. You don't generate c++ from form files or Qt-annotated C++ files out of magic.