Qt/Mac Application Developer Contest

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qt/Mac Application Developer Contest

Posted by pudge on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:16PM from the mmmmm-g5 dept.

whitefael writes "Trolltech is sponsoring a contest in order to increase the number of Qt/Mac applications available and to award the best commercially developed and free Qt-based applications on the Mac. The prize? A screaming Power Mac G5! The top ten will be announced at Apple's World Wide Developer (WWDC) Conference 2004, June 28-July 2. The top two from each category will also receive iPods. Anyone out there interested? You have until May 7, 2004 to enter."

34 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I so wish... by Currawong · 2004-02-11 23:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

...that Open Office, The Gimp, Bluefish, Abiword, axyftp and some of the G and K apps were fully OSX native (GUI native as well, not just only usable in X11.app) - there's so much that open source apps and Qt/Mac could bring to the Mac world in this way.

--

What is the point of the internet?
1. Re:I so wish... by Llywelyn · 2004-02-11 23:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Part of the problem with this is that the ports brought over, while they are integrated with Aqua and much nicer than working with them through X11, still aren't pretty and still need work. I'm concerned that "Aquafication" will stop after it starts running, but that's only where the "fun" begins.
  
  Take LyX/Mac as an example of this. I installed LyX/Mac earlier today to check it out, though I admit I was skeptical and have a strong preference for TeXShop and iTeXMac going into this. It's *significantly* nicer than using LyX through X11--its nice and clean, I can copy-and-paste out of it (but not into it), and its antialiased and gives good results.
  
  It isn't, however, fully integrated.
  
  The remaining issues range from major mechanical things such as paste to Cocoa-specific features such as services or the native built-in spell check that are nice to have around, to minor things like the icons reminding me of windows or that the command keys don't appear in the menus.
  
  I think that this is a good program and I applaud it and it may see some use (though paste not working may be a deal killer for me on this particular app), and I really like that Qt/Mac is there and makes this an easier process but it is not going to be a panacea in getting software ported to Aqua.
  
  --
  Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
2. Re:I so wish... by WillAdams · 2004-02-12 03:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  ::applause::
  
  I first heard of LyX when someone asked if it could be made to run in NeXTstep, and was immediately quite impressed and taken by the concept (What You See Is What You Mean document processor, see www.lyx.org for details).
  
  I'd _really_ like to see such things as Services handled within QT though, so that decently coded apps would automagically, ``just work'', as they do with the Cocoa toolkit. I suspect this would really require effort by Apple along the lines of their work on khtml for Safari --- I've argued that Apple should jump off the MS Office document bandwagon for a long while, and using LyX as the basis for a document processor would be a great way to do that.
  
  William
  
  --
  Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
3. Re:I so wish... by tyrione · 2004-02-12 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  It needs a native Cocoa Interface with zero Carbon hooks and have zero dependency upon Qt. I love the Qt LyX for X11 but compared to what OS X can offer, true-native via Cocoa is no comparison.
  
  None of the folks have any experience with ObjC.
  
  The first Cocoa version should target the 1.4 CVS release which still has maturing to overcome.
  
  I agree it would be wonderful of Apple to do the Port and then add specific extras, but I think the licensing options would be the biggest hurdle to overcome.
4. Re:I so wish... by Llywelyn · 2004-02-12 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  >I agree it would be wonderful of Apple to do the Port and then
  >add specific extras, but I think the licensing options would be
  >the biggest hurdle to overcome.
  
  Honestly, as nice as it would sometimes be, I am not expecting Apple to ever develop with the full GPL for something like that.
  
  They want a library they can use as a backend for all of their apps and add functionality to the OS. Things that will link to other parts of the OS. They *don't* want to have to worry about linking.
  
  My impression so far has been that they don't mind contributing to open source projects and taking advantage of them--KHTML comes to mind--but they are not going to want to build an app or a library for an app from open source that they can't link into their proprietary libraries.
  
  Unfortunate--it seems like a nice app. If we want to see this level of functionality we are going to have to build it ourselves. Either from scratch or from LyX.
  
  --
  Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
5. Re:I so wish... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  I love this program. And paste does work (at least text). You simply have to specify Paste External Selection.
  
  I agree that it would be nice to offer all sorts of OS X services. But think of what it offers right now. An extremely powerful document processor based on Latex. I use Lyx so much that if it weren't available on OS X I doubt I would be using OS X.
  
  Now if I could only get pybliographer to work!
just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-11 23:21 · Score: 0

So how do you develop & test a QT/Mac application without access to a Mac??
1. Re:just wondering... by AndyElf · 2004-02-12 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  You can check with Psi developers on that.
  
  --
  
  --AP
let's see by ajagci · 2004-02-11 23:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Screaming G5" at, say, $3000, contract programming at, say, $100/h. So, that means you'd have to code something in at most 30h in order to make it worth your while even if you were certain to win. However, given that you will be competing against lots of people who invest irrationally much time, your chances of winning are negligible. Sorry, it's just not worth it.
1. Re:let's see by Shisha · 2004-02-12 00:40 · Score: 3, Troll
  
  Sorry, but with this logic, there would never be any Linux or GNU software. Since Linux and GNU is here, you argument must be wrong. Why?
  
  When someone writes something to release under GPL then he does it other things than profit (exercise, to show of..) so if he wins he basically gets something for nothing (the G5) and a bit of fame on top of it.
  
  When you submit a commercial Qt application then I guess you'll be able to sell it anyway, for profit _maybe_. Now getting something as frivolous as Apple G5 is nice, since most rational people realise that they don't really need a G5 and so won't buy it.
  
  The toughest competion might be the "best ported X11/Qt app" since this group that ported konqueror and effectively KDE will be silly not to submit it...
  
  Besides with outsourcing to India the $100/h programming days are over anyway, so once you start counting $10/h or maybe $1/h ... you'll get radically different numbers.
2. Re:let's see by piggy · 2004-02-12 01:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except there is more utility at stake than merely the G5 (although, of course, for each entrant, the exact value of the utility will vary wildly). Some may gain pleasure from entering a contest, some may enjoy the possible prestige or resume boost from winning, for others, they might enjoy programming in general and see this as an opportunity to program but also have a chance at some material gain.
  
  Clearly your utility is equivalent to your economic gain.
3. Re:let's see by gl4ss · 2004-02-12 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  you wouldn't probably throw away the publicity nor the program itself.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:let's see by ajagci · 2004-02-12 02:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sorry, but with this logic, there would never be any Linux or GNU software.
  
  No: Linux and GNU software is open source software for an open source platform. Even when GNU software was originally developed, the fact that it ran on SunOS was viewed as a temporary compromise, with the long term goal of replacing SunOS with something open source.
  
  The Qt/Mac competition promotes the creation of software for a proprietary toolkit on a proprietary platform and has no intention of replacing either of those proprietary tools with anything free.
  
  Now getting something as frivolous as Apple G5 is nice, since most rational people realise that they don't really need a G5 and so won't buy it.
  
  I don't see anything "frivolous" about a G5--its performance is roughly comparable to that of modern desktop PCs. It has a particularly stylish case design, but that's all.
5. Re:let's see by ajagci · 2004-02-12 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly your utility is equivalent to your economic gain.
  
  When developing software whose purpose is to promote other companies' commercial platforms, you bet it is. That kind of thing, I expect to get paid for.
  
  For many other kinds of software development, I develop and share it freely. That has many non-monetary benefits. But those don't apply in this case.
6. Re:let's see by pudge · 2004-02-12 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Many people, I imagine, will be either working on stuff they wanted to do anyway, or taking the opportunity to learn something they've wanted to learn. It's not about getting paid for your time, it's about doing something you enjoy, and possibly getting a reward for it.
7. Re:let's see by Teancom · 2004-02-12 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Except that GPL Qt is available for the Mac. So, it is functionally no different than programming something in pure Qt for Linux, at least with regards to promoting their 'commercial' and 'proprietary' product. Unless you are also against all Qt programming in Linux? Or are you fully against free software on the Mac? Which one is it? I mean, you did notice the part of the summary that said 'and free Qt-based applications on the Mac.', right?
8. Re:let's see by ajagci · 2004-02-12 06:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Except that GPL Qt is available for the Mac. So, it is functionally no different than programming something in pure Qt for Linux, at least with regards to promoting their 'commercial' and 'proprietary' product.
  
  Yes, you are quite right: it is very similar.
  
  Unless you are also against all Qt programming in Linux? Or are you fully against free software on the Mac?
  
  I don't know what you mean by "being against it". I think Troll Tech had a mediocre toolkit that only succeeded because of their licensing gimmicks and they have taken unfair advantage of gullible open source developers in order to succeed. When you develop a good application for Qt or Macintosh, you are giving those two companies a huge, free gift. Why would you want to do that when you could instead create software on/for open source platforms that you yourself have full control over?
  
  So, I think it's stupid for you to develop open source software in Qt or for Macintosh. But you have a right to be stupid, so in that sense, I'm not "against it", I'm just pointing out your stupidity.
9. Re:let's see by ajagci · 2004-02-12 09:41 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Ah, the Macintosh and Qt zealots never fail to disappoint: criticize their obsession and they mod you down.
10. Re:let's see by Shisha · 2004-02-13 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on, dig a bit deeper (I know that on slashdot it's still popular to shout QT IS PROPRIETARY, but that's just not true. Repeating it over and over agin won't make it true either!):
  
  Qt/Mac competition promotes the creation of software for a proprietary toolkit
  
  Qt/Mac is _dually licensed_ under _GPL_ and a _proprietary_ license. Mac Qt/GPL is for developing _free_ apps for Mac. Similarly as with Qt/X11. Yes Darwin and most of MacOS X sitting above is proprietary, but that doesn't matter, because if someone develops something _original_ and _useful_ for the GPL part of the competition, it will be easy to port to Linux (or would you rather if I said GNU/Linux?).
  
  I don't see anything "frivolous" about a G5--its performance is roughly comparable to that of modern desktop PCs. It has a particularly stylish case design, but that's all.
  
  Exactly, you said it yourself, performance comparable to modern PC, stylish desigh, what about the _price_ though? That's what I call frivolous. Buying a Jaguar instead of Honda, or B&O stereo instead of Sony, is similarly frivolous. But I _never_ even hinted that it's silly to do so, I didn't mean to suggest that it's not something I wouldn't ever do, either. My sole point was that getting G5 is a great price, because there are not that many developers who own one already.
Re:Qt vs. GTK by TheRaven64 · 2004-02-12 00:23 · Score: 3, Informative

I've not seen that study, do you have a link? I'm quite surprised by the result. I use the Jabber client Psi on my Mac. It was developed on Linux. To port it to the Mac, they needed to create a new makefile. For the first few Mac releases, none of the developers even had access to a Mac (they just sent code snapshots to someone else to build).
GTK may be more efficient for *NIX/X11 development, but it doesn't touch Qt in the cross platform arena.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Kinda unfair this contest... by BibelBiber · 2004-02-12 00:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Unfair because the winner seems to be obvious. Take a close look at what this Ranger Rick has done so far: Ricks Blog on Qt/Mac
That guy has almost completed porting KDE to Mac OS X. That is really cool stuff.
He and his companios really deserve the G5 and iPods and whatever else is to win :-)
1. Re:Kinda unfair this contest... by RatPh!nk · 2004-02-12 02:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Though RangerRick has done a lion share of the work (vastly more than probably the rest of us combined) there are a lot of other people involved in the project as well who have contributed a lot of time (Martin, IceFox,,ChArles etc..) albeit with less to show for it (with the exception of IceFox) I personally blame X11's virtual keyboard.....*damn you X11 virtual keyboard implementation*
  
  But yes, things are coming along quite nicely in the KDE-Darwin land =)
  
  Drop by and say hi! irc.kde.org channel=#kde-darwin or visit at KDE on Darwin HomePage
  
  We are always looking for help!
  
  --
  Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
2. Re:Kinda unfair this contest... by BibelBiber · 2004-02-13 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Of course there is more than just one Ranger Rick doing all that cool stuff. But he's the one who keeps people getting more and more crazy about KDE on Darwin.
  Anyway, thank you to all the other developers who make life even more interesting on the Mac side. Hope you guys win everything there is :-)
RTFM by SgtChaireBourne · 2004-02-12 01:13 · Score: 1

Where can the documentation and tutorials for the Free Edition be downloaded? I see the online versions but am looking for the monolithic documentation and tutorials.
The monolithic versions (all chapters in one single document) are easier to download and/or work with offline. The tempting alternative is getting wacky with wget which may frustrate Trolltech's server.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
1. Re:RTFM by morcheeba · 2004-02-12 04:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  download it and look in /Developer/qt/doc/html/index.html
  
  It's not monolithic, but it's all in one download.
  
  --
  HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
I was wanting a Mac, but... by sosedada · 2004-02-12 02:28 · Score: 1

Your submission has to work on a Mac and I don't have one, kind of a chicken and egg problem. I understand they made the contest to create Qt interest in the Mac community, but I feel cheated.
1. Re:I was wanting a Mac, but... by steeviant · 2004-02-17 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  You could make a program in QT in Linux, and send it to a friendly Mac owner to compile it... or alternatively next time you see a stylishly dressed yuppie using a PowerBook in starbucks, tell him that you saw a guy in blue jeans, black polar neck, and glasses signing autographs outside, and grab the Mac when he runs off looking for him.
Re:Qt vs. GTK by ajagci · 2004-02-12 02:47 · Score: 1

GTK may be more efficient for *NIX/X11 development, but it doesn't touch Qt in the cross platform arena.

No, but Gtk+ runs natively when you run it on the Mac because Apple now has a pretty good official X11 server for OS X, and they keep improving the integration of it into the desktop.