PortaBase is a database program for creating, browsing, and editing single-table data files. Notable features include the ability to change the columns at any time, views of column subsets, multi-column sorting, multi-condition filtering, CSV import and export, XML import and export, and column summary statistics. Typical uses are media inventories, reference charts, shopping lists, and TODO lists.
Re: Qt pricing
> Now my point is: if I need limited
> portability of the application (let say
> between Windows and X11 - Qt lowest
> price 2325 USD) then I'm better of
> buying the complete software solution
> for that price. As I said before Borland
> C++ Builder/Kylix package is only 999
> USD in lowest price (both products
> together). Plus there always are more
> free alternatives to Qt like wxWindows.
> Now answer me this, please - what's the
> pointg in buying that expensive library
> at all?
The point is that sometimes you need it. For many projects
wxWindows or one of the other toolkits will be a better
choice, but Qt does still have some features that they lack.
As I mentioned earlier, if you want a cross-platform
application that can display Unicode text on Windows 9x/ME,
Qt is just about your only choice. (Java would probably work
also, but I think you'd have to include the JVM with your app
for legal and configuration reasons; that's substantially bigger
than statically compiling Qt in, and the program would be
much slower and use much more memory.)
So if you're writing an application that for business reasons
needs to support multiple languages on old versions of
Windows (data entry in multiple countries, language tutorial
to accompany a textbook, etc.) it's often well worth paying
the Qt license fee to avoid spending weeks hacking one of the
other toolkits to kind of work the way you want. Then again,
if you only need western European languages, or don't need
to support old Windows versions, or are just more picky
about the kind of license you're willing to accept, wxWindows
or one of the other options may well be a better choice.
Re: Another set of opinions
I basically agree, I was just treading a little more delicately on
the possibility of starting another Qt quality/licensing
Points worth noting: the Cygwin port of GPL Qt for X11
involves installing Cygwin, which isn't really an option for
many programs. The port to native Win32 isn't really done
yet, and there's been some significant debate over whether it
should be finished or not; Trolltech's experience so far has led
them to believe that releasing such a thing themselves would
cause them to lose much of their revenue stream, so while
the license allows such a port to be legally done there's some
concern that it wouldn't be polite to do. So for the time
being, this is a possiblility but not yet a reality.
The current situation is thus that for the deployment of
cross-platform software with Windows as one of the target
platforms, the main options are:
- Use the non-commercial version of Qt for Windows, which is
somewhat out of date and has a few restrictions (no ability to
set titlebar text, etc.) This is what I currently do for
PortaBase (a database program for the Zaurus, Linux
desktops, and Windows).
- Purchase a commercial license to Qt for Windows, which is
expensive for individual Free Software developers and
introduces a cost barrier for other developers helping
develop/debug the Windows port of the program. This is a
pretty good choice for companies writing anything halfway
important or complex, though. This is what I would like to do
for PortaBase, but I can't justify the cost in my case.
- Use the port of Qt for X11 to Win32, and help debug the
problems you will encounter along the way.
- Use wxWindows, and accept a slightly higher development
effort and possible Unicode problems on Win9x/ME.
- Code in Python instead and use either wxPython or PyQt (as
noted in the parent comment, the license isn't as much of a
problem in this case.) This is a really good choice for
in-house tools or niche programs due to development speed,
but nothing except C/C++ programs ever seem to succeed as
"everyday use by average person" apps due to concerns of
performance and installation dependencies.
- Code in Java instead and accept much higher memory
usage, worse performance, and even less chance than Python
of succeeding as an everyday app. Decent choice for
companies with Java programmers on hand, doesn't work too
well in most other cases. (I'm employed as a Java
programmer, and I acknowledge it as a pretty good choice for
server programming; it tends to fail miserably on the client,