1 thought on “What are the advantages and disadvantages of using QT to develop iOS applications?”
Sally
This is mainly reflected in 3 points:
1. Regarding cross -platform: a major advantage of QT is cross -platform. If a code is allowed to be developed by QT standard, then it can be theoretically across all QT qt Supported platforms do not need to be modified. But this is a price. For example, for the iOS platform, if you use OC or SWIFT, you may use 1 copy to complete the development time, but QT may be 1.5 copies. This is mainly reflected in QT's unprecedented and mature (QT currently has a LAB, a control package, which is optimized for the mobile platform, but it is still in the test stage). Control developers are used. For example, QT does not have a side slip window, no sliding return, and no top status bar. Many things need to make wheels by themselves. It is very wasteful and the effect is not necessarily good. I remember when 5.5, I did n’t even have the function of the system album. I need to write an OC code to access it, but 5.6 added. The workload of this development is obviously inappropriate for an app without cross -platform demand. However, if there is a cross -platform demand, it may be 1.5 copies of the development volume, and you can get the APP of the two platforms of the iOS Android platform. Compared with the two copies of the development volume, the cost performance will come up. And if there is a need, you can also deploy to WP and wait for mobile platforms.
2. Regarding Quick qt starting from 5, developed with Quick (Quick is a framework, QML is a language of Quick), and then develop complex logic with C . This vision is good, but the implementation is really slow. This is because the new framework is Quick, which brings new learning costs, which directly scares away many people. I know that many people using QT, even if they have developed WIDGETS for N -year, may be completely unacceptable to Qucik. Of course, Quick itself is good. Compared with Widgets, it has high development efficiency, beautiful, and fast running. In addition, if it is the Widgets development mobile app, I suggest that you directly dispel this idea. This is mainly because the procedures developed with Widgets are too bad in all aspects. For example, many interfaces of widgets are drawn by CPU, and then the mobile platform CPU is already weak, which makes the interface very stuck. There are also low development efficiency.
3. Regarding maturity From the perspective of QT5.6, many modules have been added before. It's right. However, for the complex apps, I suggest that it is better to weigh it. Also, many SDK bags now only adapt the native framework. Using QT development means that you still have to return to the native framework to deal with some communication and interaction or something. This should also be noted.
This is mainly reflected in 3 points:
1. Regarding cross -platform: a major advantage of
QT is cross -platform. If a code is allowed to be developed by QT standard, then it can be theoretically across all QT qt Supported platforms do not need to be modified. But this is a price. For example, for the iOS platform, if you use OC or SWIFT, you may use 1 copy to complete the development time, but QT may be 1.5 copies. This is mainly reflected in QT's unprecedented and mature (QT currently has a LAB, a control package, which is optimized for the mobile platform, but it is still in the test stage). Control developers are used. For example, QT does not have a side slip window, no sliding return, and no top status bar. Many things need to make wheels by themselves. It is very wasteful and the effect is not necessarily good. I remember when 5.5, I did n’t even have the function of the system album. I need to write an OC code to access it, but 5.6 added. The workload of this development is obviously inappropriate for an app without cross -platform demand. However, if there is a cross -platform demand, it may be 1.5 copies of the development volume, and you can get the APP of the two platforms of the iOS Android platform. Compared with the two copies of the development volume, the cost performance will come up. And if there is a need, you can also deploy to WP and wait for mobile platforms.
2. Regarding Quick
qt starting from 5, developed with Quick (Quick is a framework, QML is a language of Quick), and then develop complex logic with C . This vision is good, but the implementation is really slow. This is because the new framework is Quick, which brings new learning costs, which directly scares away many people. I know that many people using QT, even if they have developed WIDGETS for N -year, may be completely unacceptable to Qucik. Of course, Quick itself is good. Compared with Widgets, it has high development efficiency, beautiful, and fast running. In addition, if it is the Widgets development mobile app, I suggest that you directly dispel this idea. This is mainly because the procedures developed with Widgets are too bad in all aspects. For example, many interfaces of widgets are drawn by CPU, and then the mobile platform CPU is already weak, which makes the interface very stuck. There are also low development efficiency.
3. Regarding maturity
From the perspective of QT5.6, many modules have been added before. It's right. However, for the complex apps, I suggest that it is better to weigh it. Also, many SDK bags now only adapt the native framework. Using QT development means that you still have to return to the native framework to deal with some communication and interaction or something. This should also be noted.