I use Qt professionally. What exactly do you want me to say here?

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.

> Salivate over bullet points on a release announcement

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?

It is the culture of free beer. On my circle most developers don't even care that sites like HN and Reddit exist.

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.

Mind that nice things also come from the crowd which you call hipster, whereas your 9-5 crowd is writing some dotnet accounting app. I couldn't care less about what enterprise java developers do, not because I disrespect them, but it's not discussed because it's not interesting.

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.

I bet the majority those non hater people using InteliJ don't pay for it, and the enterprise customers are the majority of their paying customers, and most likely they also get some money from godfather Google thanks to Android Studio and Kotlin.

Speaking of which, if eventually Google ends up buying them, lets see how much love is left.

Yep, that doesn't counter my main point though.

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.

Naturally I don't like, something like C++ Builder is impossible to achieve if one relies on the people that want to get paid, while unwilling to pay for their tools, just like in every other profession.

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.

Weird, last time I noticed Qt being discussed on HN, I got a really useful and technical comment which is still something I'm basing my future plans on.

You can't say that and then not link the comment!

Weird, can you link it?

Can you provide an example of a comment sufficiently technical to be worthy?

I'm saying there isn't one (well, a hundred messages in and there are a handful at last :) ). Nobody is discussing what's new for instance. I'd be interested in the status of moc (isn't mentioned on the page).

The MOC is still present in Qt 6.0, if that is what you are asking.

Even with CMake?

Question should be "even with C++17?". Cmake has had moc and uic support for years now. The question is why they don't leverage the c++17 features to get rid of moc, ffs.

There is some features used by moc expected in c++23 like reflection. I think that in qt 7 they will drop moc an some stl replcements in qtcore

> Even with CMake?

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.

Yes. That's orthogonal. And people have been using CMake with Qt (and moc) for almost as long as cmake exists