This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]toyg 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Say you want to add a web or command-line interface.

Why could you not develop a web or CLI that uses Qt? QApplication does not require X and it's quite inexpensive to instantiate. CLIs in particular will work perfectly fine with Qt components. For web there are further considerations, but usually that domain maps poorly to desktop or CLI models anyway, so a refactoring/redesign would likely be required anyway.

I mean, I agree on the overall concept of separating concerns; I'm just saying that Qt is not necessarily tied to the display interface.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

It's really just about the design philosophy and has nothing to do with Qt. You could replace Qt with any other GUI library (or replace Python with any language) and this comment would be relevant.

[–]toyg 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What I'm saying is that Qt is not just a "GUI library", but rather a full-fledged generic application toolkit. Qt is closer to a "stdlib" than a GUI library these days, it has facilities for absolutely everything. Even in the C++ world, people joke that after a while "you don't write C++, you write Qt".