Both Facebook and Netflix implemented their eponymous apps with Web. Despite spending millions of dollars, neither of them could achieve an iPhone-like user experience (60 frames per second and less than 100ms response to user inputs) on anything less powerful than a system-on-chip (SoC) with four ARM Cortex-A9 cores.
In contrast, numerous products like infotainment systems, in-flight entertainment systems, harvester terminals and home appliances prove that you can achieve an iPhone-like user experience (UX) on single-core Cortex-A8 SoCs. Our above-mentioned manufacturer HAM Inc. (renamed for the sake of confidentiality) verified these results by building both a Web and Qt prototype.
In this white paper, Burkhard Stubert explains how he could save one of the world's largest home appliance manufacturers millions of Euros by choosing Qt over HTML. The secret? Qt scales down to lower-end hardware a lot better, without sacrificing user experience.
With a five times smaller footprint, four to eight times lower RAM requirements and a more efficient rendering flow than HTML, Qt provides faster start-up times and maintains the cherished 60fps and 100ms response time, where HTML would struggle. The calculations show that being able to just downgrade your SoC by just one tier like this, Qt can reduce your hardware costs by over 53%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @09:49AM (2 children)
I love Qt, but why would you expect it to look good under the hood?
It makes you use macros! In C++!
(or am I out of date?)
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday February 23 2018, @10:17AM
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday February 23 2018, @07:33PM
Does 'moc' preprocessed C++ strike you as that ugly? The bar is set pretty high these days. The webby way is to pull in literally megabytes of JavaScript and base your whole front-end around the flavour-of-the-month framework.
Use of a preprocessor doesn't strike me as that bad. An additional PITA for the build system, sure (they're still all awful, as far as I know), and it's a good reason to avoid Qt when teaching standard C++, but moc isn't so bad.
Also, moc isn't exactly macros. If if were just a matter of C++ macros, there'd be no need for moc in the first place.
Also, compared to its C++ rivals, Qt's design is remarkably nice. If moc is the price, it seems worth it.