49 karma · joined December 19, 2009
Sure, you will take a runtime performance hit if you do a QML UI because all the QML needs to be parsed.
But then again, no it's not all javascript and no it will not suck up all of your CPU. When you write simple bindings (for example someProperty: otherPropert ? "yes.png" : "no.png") the QML engine actually detects these simple cases and doesn't invoke the javascript interpreter when it needs to evaluate the expression, but handles it internally instead. Also if you don't want to do things in javascript you really don't have to as calling QObject slots is super easy. If you stick to simple bindings and write your logic in C++, the javascript interpreter won't have much to do.
The legislators are justifying the legalization with the relatively small harm caused by the 'lending', ease of securing the network and the difficulty of figuring out what is actgually meant to be public and what is not.
I'm not saying that Adobe's Flash has had a huge impact on the Symbian world, but just to get the facts straight.
What comes to the developing environment Nokia has taken a huge leap (ok ok any improvement of the late atrocity is a huge improvement :)) by adopting Qt and their tools. It's hard to find people who will put Qt down.
Why would someone want it instead of Safari? I'm sure lots of people use Firefox on their Macs too. Competition usually benefits us consumers.
Do I think we will see it on iPhone? Definitely not (I'm pretty sure both Apple and folks at Mozilla agree).
Edit: I just realized that you're not allowed to comment on it if there is one :)
Also the game developers who would like to see open gaming platforms are probably outnumbered by the people who are now worried about a more closed general software industry => more noise.
Assembling from a kit and developing own firmware for something like this http://monome.org/devices might be fun. Even if not used as a MIDI controller it could be a nice toy (visual effects with human input).
The iPad's form factor is a tablet, so I'd say it's a safe bet to say that tablet manufacturers will keep on manufacturing tab... I mean copying iPads form factor ;)
What's there for Google?
- Google, Apple and Microsoft can afford the license and the fee is peanuts to them. Most likely Flash will be history no matter what codec wins. - If Mozilla decides to stick with it's values and stay free (is anything else even an option?) while the web goes h.264, I'd say a significant part of people will migrate to other browsers. And come on who's going to migrate to IE and Safari isn't that popular on PC, so that's even better for Google and it's Chrome. How could a bigger browser market share be bad? One downside though would be that some smart people who would be really valuable employees and have strong personal values might get pissed off and not join Google.
- "You owe it to the public" "if you care about free software". No matter how much it sucks, the only entities Google owes something is it's creditors and share holders. Sometimes same things benefit both the public and the share holders which is just super, but isn't it a bit naive to ask a publicly listed company not to take advantage of the situation just because it would be nice? Again though there's the possible loss of love, of which effect on the business as a whole I'm not competent to evaluate.
- Mobile hardware support is important and it's going to get even more important in years to come. I might be talking out of my ass here, but isn't the world full of hardware support for h.264? If that hardware support is something really generic like doing ICT really fast and can be applied to VP8 then this might not be that important.
I might be repeating someone here, but the problem is that once you start enforcing laws against things like this you also give the other party the opportunity to slap employers with false claims of sexism/racism. Which in turn might actually lead to even rational non-biggoted employers favouring (other factors being equal) groups that are less likely to make such claims if the employee is fired. Biggots are not going to hire you in the first place, so who's winning here? Ok ok, in many cases the person who hires you is not the person who fires you, so (surprise surprise) it's not that black and white.
Maybe being a heterosexual white male I'm not feeling the problem first hand and that affects my judgement, but usually when thinking these things I come to the conclusion that laws written with good intentions to abolish all sorts of nasty things end up doing more harm than good (and no I'm not a ultra-libertarian either).