Qt-interest Archive, July 2006
Qt vs Boost
Pages: Prev | 1 | 2 | Next
Message 1 in thread
Good evening, everyone! I need some advice...
A couple of friends and I are about to set off to create a cross-
platform chat utility. One of us wants Qt and another wants Boost.
Not knowing anything about either, I need to quickly get some pros
and cons, or comparisons, between the two libraries.
In short, is there any benefit to using one above the other? Maybe
something that one has that the other does not?
Any advice or input would be GREATLY appreciated as I need to get up
to speed as fast as humanly possible (or faster).
Thanx,
Ryan
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 2 in thread
"Lotsa Cabo" <lotsacabo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9B300E2B-0950-4170-8C93-BD09A46D92CD@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Good evening, everyone! I need some advice...
>
> A couple of friends and I are about to set off to create a cross- platform
> chat utility. One of us wants Qt and another wants Boost. Not knowing
> anything about either, I need to quickly get some pros and cons, or
> comparisons, between the two libraries.
>
> In short, is there any benefit to using one above the other? Maybe
> something that one has that the other does not?
>
> Any advice or input would be GREATLY appreciated as I need to get up to
> speed as fast as humanly possible (or faster).
Not sure what you mean Qt vs Boost. Boost doesn't have
any ui stuff. Although they're working on a streaming socket
library, I don't believe they currently have any socket stuff
either.
We use both Qt and Boost. Together they make
life a lot easier.
They both have thread libraries and signal/slot
libraries. Is this what you're asking about?
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 3 in thread
On Saturday 1 July 2006 03:09, Duane Hebert wrote:
> "Lotsa Cabo" <lotsacabo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:9B300E2B-0950-4170-8C93-BD09A46D92CD@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Good evening, everyone! I need some advice...
> >
> > A couple of friends and I are about to set off to create a cross-
> > platform chat utility. One of us wants Qt and another wants Boost. Not
> > knowing anything about either, I need to quickly get some pros and cons,
> > or comparisons, between the two libraries.
> >
> > In short, is there any benefit to using one above the other? Maybe
> > something that one has that the other does not?
> >
> > Any advice or input would be GREATLY appreciated as I need to get up to
> > speed as fast as humanly possible (or faster).
>
> Not sure what you mean Qt vs Boost. Boost doesn't have
> any ui stuff. Although they're working on a streaming socket
> library, I don't believe they currently have any socket stuff
> either.
>
> We use both Qt and Boost. Together they make
> life a lot easier.
>
> They both have thread libraries and signal/slot
> libraries. Is this what you're asking about?
>
I Agree. Both don't exclude each other, but are a complement to each other.
Especially if it keeps both sides happy, use them both for what they're good
for. During your build process, you'll find out the strong points of each
library.
Kind Regards
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 4 in thread
On Jun 30, 2006, at 9:09 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>
> Not sure what you mean Qt vs Boost. Boost doesn't have
> any ui stuff. Although they're working on a streaming socket
> library, I don't believe they currently have any socket stuff
> either.
Hmm... am I confused?
A Trolltech sales rep gave me the impression that one could happily
go off and create an entire cross-platform application, without
having to worry about the underlying OS, using only what came with C+
+, the STL, and Qt 4. That is why it would be worth $6,000, would it
not?
When Boost was brought into the equation, it appeared to have almost
no UI libraries (compared to Qt) but, again, I was pitched the idea
that all of the needed pieces (sockets, threading, etc.) would be in
the libraries. Again, the assumption was that one could essentially
pick one, or the other.
Again, I am coming in at the middle. How lost am I?
-- Fred
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 5 in thread
"Lotsa Cabo" <lotsacabo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:25D1C7BD-15A4-43B9-B560-FAF363BC6CE9@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hmm... am I confused?
Possibly <g>
> A Trolltech sales rep gave me the impression that one could happily go
> off and create an entire cross-platform application, without having to
> worry about the underlying OS, using only what came with C+ +, the STL,
> and Qt 4. That is why it would be worth $6,000, would it not?
Sounds true to me for the most part.
Of course you need a compiler/linker...
> When Boost was brought into the equation, it appeared to have almost no
> UI libraries (compared to Qt) but, again, I was pitched the idea that all
> of the needed pieces (sockets, threading, etc.) would be in the
> libraries. Again, the assumption was that one could essentially pick
> one, or the other.
Boost is more like an extension of the STL. Some boost
libs will be adopted into tr1 although I think that Dinkumware
is the only one to currently support this.
Not sure who "pitched" you the idea of boost having
all of the pieces. I don't know of any UI libraries
and like I said, I think the socket library is only
under development. It certainly has threads. Whether you
use boost threads or qthread is up to you.
Maybe you should look at boost.org. The libraries
are listed and the documentation is fairly good.
> Again, I am coming in at the middle. How lost am I?
You seem pretty lost. I would suggest spending some
time reading about the boost libs. I would also suggest
downloading and evaluating Qt.
We're currently doing Qt/MSVC7.1 on windows
and have done some testing to port our stuff
to linux using Qt/gcc. Both use boost libs
extensively and both seem fine.
Now if someone would develop a good cross platform IDE...
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 6 in thread
"Duane Hebert" <spoo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 07/01/2006 07:23:13 AM:
# Now if someone would develop a good cross platform IDE...
There's SlickEdit, though it's not free...
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 7 in thread
<Gordon.Schumacher@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OF0771EE1F.2633BCED-ON872571A3.005D61EC-872571A3.005DD125@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Duane Hebert" <spoo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 07/01/2006 07:23:13 AM:
>
> # Now if someone would develop a good cross platform IDE...
>
> There's SlickEdit, though it's not free...
You're not the first to recommend this one. Looks good
at first glance. Thanks.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 8 in thread
"Duane Hebert" <spoo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 07/06/2006 01:05:23 PM:
# > # Now if someone would develop a good cross platform IDE...
# >
# > There's SlickEdit, though it's not free...
#
# You're not the first to recommend this one. Looks good
# at first glance. Thanks.
Best of all, I'm told that it's written in Qt! Now if only they'd add
qmake integration... :)
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 9 in thread
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Gordon.Schumacher@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> "Duane Hebert" <spoo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 07/06/2006 01:05:23 PM:
>
> # > # Now if someone would develop a good cross platform IDE...
> # >
> # > There's SlickEdit, though it's not free...
> #
> # You're not the first to recommend this one. Looks good
> # at first glance. Thanks.
>
> Best of all, I'm told that it's written in Qt! Now if only they'd add
> qmake integration... :)
>
I used to use SlickEdit all the time when I was developing on Linux
and IRIX and doing cross-platform development for embedded platforms.
I don't use it too much anymore since most of my work is on Windows
(I mainly use Visual Studio now). In theory, you should be able to
add qmake support yourself using SlickC (the built in SlickEdit
scripting language). It's quite powerful and relatively easy to use.
I looked at the Mac version when they first released it. I didn't
like it because it wasn't a native Mac app - it's an X11 app. That
makes all the keystrokes screwy (for a Mac keyboard) and the user
experience isn't nearly what it could be as a native Mac app.
Other alternatives are Eclipse and NetBeans. Of the two, I'd pick
NetBeans. It has a much nicer user interface and support for C++ is
improving with the 5.5 beta releases.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 10 in thread
> > # Now if someone would develop a good cross platform IDE...
> >
> > There's SlickEdit, though it's not free...
>
> You're not the first to recommend this one. Looks good
> at first glance. Thanks.
I use it frequently. Very good, worth paying for.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 11 in thread
Thursday, July 6, 2006, 5:19:28 PM, MWidener@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > # Now if someone would develop a good cross platform IDE...
>> >
>> > There's SlickEdit, though it's not free...
>>
>> You're not the first to recommend this one. Looks good
>> at first glance. Thanks.
> I use it frequently. Very good, worth paying for.
Eclipse is a good cross-platform IDE. It's not just for
Java.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 12 in thread
On Saturday July 1 2006 08:41, Lotsa Cabo wrote:
> A Trolltech sales rep gave me the impression that one could happily
> go off and create an entire cross-platform application, without
> having to worry about the underlying OS, using only what came with C+
> +, the STL, and Qt 4. That is why it would be worth $6,000, would it
> not?
He was right.
> When Boost was brought into the equation, it appeared to have almost
> no UI libraries (compared to Qt) but, again, I was pitched the idea
> that all of the needed pieces (sockets, threading, etc.) would be in
> the libraries. Again, the assumption was that one could essentially
> pick one, or the other.
Boost has a threading library but not sockets. Qt has both.
What more do you need?
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 13 in thread
Lotsa Cabo wrote:
> Again, I am coming in at the middle. How lost am I?
I think, you should go back to square one and sort some things.
IIRC, in your first posting you mention something like 'to get up with
something as quick as possible'.
Wrong way. You obviously lack elementary knowledge to make this sort of
decision (don't be offended, no pejorative meaning).
Every C++ programmer has an idea regarding Boost's and Qt's area of
applicability - even, if not using any of them. Very roughly, they are
supplemental software. Some areas overlap, but most don't so.
So, first spend some time and possibly money with/for someone with
experience. I'm afraid, mailing lists are not enough in your case, and
even so the advise, to grasp knowledge from documentation alone.
Besides financial questions (Boost is no problem here, its free of cost
and even so in license terms) I cannot imagine, how to design and
develop a software with your current prerequisites.
Micha
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 14 in thread
On Jul 1, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Micha Bieber wrote:
Okay, this has got to be the most insulting email I've read to
date... addressed to me or anyone else.
> Wrong way. You obviously lack elementary knowledge to make this
> sort of decision (don't be offended, no pejorative meaning).
How could that NOT sound offensive?
> Every C++ programmer has an idea regarding Boost's and Qt's area of
> applicability - even, if not using any of them. Very roughly, they
> are supplemental software. Some areas overlap, but most don't so.
You are absolutely correct. I am no longer a dedicated C++
developer. Now, 20+ years into my career, most of my time is spent
on C# / .NET / Java / SQL. A lot has changed in C++ since I last
touched it, granted, but not so much that I think I need to return to
school.
> So, first spend some time and possibly money with/for someone with
> experience. I'm afraid, mailing lists are not enough in your case,
> and even so the advise, to grasp knowledge from documentation alone.
My purpose of coming to this list was to get an objective concept on
what both provide... period. I am not hear to supplement some half-
baked education. I needed to know what the core differences are
between Boost and Qt because I have two developer playing a tug-o-war
between the two.
> Besides financial questions (Boost is no problem here, its free of
> cost and even so in license terms) I cannot imagine, how to design
> and develop a software with your current prerequisites.
WHAT do you THINK my "current prerequisites" are? For you to come in
at the tail end of a thread, without having ANY knowledge of our team
or our application, is moronic, at best. Talk about not having
"elementary knowledge" of something!
I would appreciate it if you chose not to respond to any of my
messages in the future.
Thanx,
Ryan
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 15 in thread
> My purpose of coming to this list was to get an objective concept on what
> both provide... period. I am not hear to supplement some half- baked
> education. I needed to know what the core differences are between Boost
> and Qt because I have two developer playing a tug-o-war between the two.
About the only thing that I can see that your developers
could be arguing about is which to use for threads and
signal/slot. IMO and only MO, if I was using Qt for
the gui, I would use Qt's signal/slot. As for threads,
if your discussing that, I can tell you that boost threads
work fine.
We don't have any gui thread stuff. We tend to separate
gui/non gui code. We try to minimize threads as they're
the most difficult to handle. We ported our main projects
from borland. We replaced the gui stuff with Qt and it
has been great. We didn't have to change our non gui
code so we didn't.
We are currently only threading some serial I/O stuff and
we use boost for that. I've looked at qthread and it looks fine.
WRT sockets, that's pretty much a no brainer as boost
doesn't offer that. Same for any UI.
> WHAT do you THINK my "current prerequisites" are? For you to come in at
> the tail end of a thread, without having ANY knowledge of our team or our
> application, is moronic, at best. Talk about not having "elementary
> knowledge" of something!
It would be helpful if your question was a bit more specific.
Like I said, the two are not mutually exclusive.
IIRC you indicate you want to write a chat program. That
seems relatively simple. I believe there's even a chat demo
in qt. You can certainly do that in qt alone. You can't
do that in boost. Well, you can do it in c++ without
either for that matter.
I still suggest that you check out the documentation for
both. If you're serious about writing c++ code, you
want to get boost anyway. If Qt is cost effective,
try the demo version or the open source version.
If you like it, buy it.
FWIW, if you're only interested in developing a
chat program, the price you mention for Qt seems
excessive. We have 6 developers using it everyday
to develop several large projects and it's worked
out very well for us. It depends a lot on what
you want to do.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Pages: Prev | 1 | 2 | Next
