Hello, list! Question is in subj of the message. Because as for me all (i mean, all, not only kde4) qt4 apps are much slower then they were on qt3. So, what are advantages of migration?
-- Old mercenaries never die. They go to hell and regroup.
With best regards, Mikle Krutov, Bercut ltd. Technical Support department
From the little I know, Qt4 would actually be faster if the apps were not more heavyweight themselves. Or at least that's what I've heard around the time it was introduced. There are also other advantages like better rendering when resizing windows and multithreaded performance. I guess the only way to know for sure if memory usage is lower, and performance is better, is to port parts of the code and test. I can't seem to find benchmarks but KDE 4 now is quite slimmer than what it used to be, even though it still uses more memory than KDE 3/Trinity.
Best regards, Tiago
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Mikle Krutov nekoexmachina@gmail.comwrote:
Hello, list! Question is in subj of the message. Because as for me all (i mean, all, not only kde4) qt4 apps are much slower then they were on qt3. So, what are advantages of migration?
Old mercenaries never die. They go to hell and regroup.
With best regards, Mikle Krutov, Bercut ltd. Technical Support department
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:14:32AM +0000, Tiago Marques wrote:
From the little I know, Qt4 would actually be faster if the apps were not
more heavyweight themselves.
So one question comes to mind: why qt4 apps with the same or less end-user functional as qt3-apps consume much more resources then, again, qt3-ones in case of kde4?
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:14:32AM +0000, Tiago Marques wrote:
From the little I know, Qt4 would actually be faster if the apps were
not more heavyweight themselves.
So one question comes to mind: why qt4 apps with the same or less end-user functional as qt3-apps consume much more resources then, again, qt3-ones in case of kde4?
Qt4 seems to encourage sloppy (slow/memory intensive) coding for some reason. Also, Qt4 lacks many functions that Qt3 offered, leaving programmers to try to re-implement them. I have found that many of these re-implementations are less efficient than the original internal Qt3 code was, partially due to unexposed internal Qt variables.
Just my $0.02.
Tim
Interesting. Going forward, is it then benefical to stic to Qt3 then?
Best regards, Tiago
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Timothy Pearson <kb9vqf@pearsoncomputing.net
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:14:32AM +0000, Tiago Marques wrote:
From the little I know, Qt4 would actually be faster if the apps were
not more heavyweight themselves.
So one question comes to mind: why qt4 apps with the same or less end-user functional as qt3-apps consume much more resources then, again, qt3-ones in case of kde4?
Qt4 seems to encourage sloppy (slow/memory intensive) coding for some reason. Also, Qt4 lacks many functions that Qt3 offered, leaving programmers to try to re-implement them. I have found that many of these re-implementations are less efficient than the original internal Qt3 code was, partially due to unexposed internal Qt variables.
Just my $0.02.
Tim
-
Mikle Krutov -
Tiago Marques -
Timothy Pearson