DEC
17
2003

The Independent Qt Tutorial

I have started writing a gentle introduction to Qt called The Independent Qt Tutorial. It currently consists of nine chapters and deals with how to setup Qt, how to use Qt Designer, how to write an application by hand, etc. The purpose of the tutorial is to cover all areas of Qt needed to write top quality applications. Feel free to check it out.

Comments

The first part is quite nut and bad written.
I'd suggest removing it as it is of no interest for building QT application.
You try to suggest what's the best way to design objects but this part can be so large it would deserve an entire book : better drop it.


By Anonymous coward at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

I'm aware of that problem, however, I want to introduce Qt's object model. I'll probably look into that part of the text though. Thanks for pointing it out.


By Johan Thelin at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

I'm aware of that problem and I will look into it. The problem is that I want to show the Qt object model, and I (apparently) drifted a bit off-topic. I will revise the text.

As for further suggestions, please mail me a copy too, since I didn't activate e-mail notification.


By Johan Thelin at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

Definitly a nice start! congrats.


By Mark Hannessen at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

I only just started reading it and what I miss is first up some practical but very simple (did I mention SIMPLE!) walkthru of using Designer for real and THEN start with the extensive theory in the fisrt few chapters... with refrences to the VSRP (very simple real project) example. It seems to me you have written the first few chapters up to make sure you understand the theory and not so much from a complete novices point of view. Theory on top of theory without referring to real-world examples is often too much work to wade thru.


By markc at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

Great idea. As I allready mentioned, I plan to redo the first chapters (concerning the object model). Perhaps I should put a Designer version of the Troll's LCD+Slider example there? That includes signals and slots while not getting to complex with Designer. My only problem then is that the Designer introduction that comes later will look to detailed, or? Suggestions?


By Johan Thelin at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

Hi Anonymous Coward here,

I really like this, keep it up!


By ac at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

Oh. ac = anonymous coward.
I finally foun out why there were so many ac(s) on this list!


By The Real AC at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

In Chapter 7, the Example 7-1 and the paragraph above, describing it, are erroneous.

In the paragraph it reads "The structure that we will introduce is a so called POD structure. This means plain old data, and means that the structure has no methods." This is not entirely correct. At various places in the Standard there are requirements for POD types, but I think a POD structure can have non-virtual member funtions. The relevant part of the Standard is Section 9 [class], paragraph 4 I think. A description of POD types can be found at http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/intrinsic-types.html#faq-26.7

As the example class "Contact" consists of the non POD type "QString", it is not a POD type itself.


By Volker Lukas at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

Thanks for pointing this out. I will fix the problem in the next revision.


By Johan Thelin at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am

how about a A Hand Made KDE Application tutorial? they look so much better then Qt ones.
this is dot.KDE.org damn it!
:)


By Pat at Wed, 2003/12/17 - 6:00am


By Pedro Echanove at Thu, 2003/12/18 - 6:00am

As you might have noticed I did an update yesterday evening (CET). Chapter one, three and seven got a facelift. Thanks for providing great feedback!


By Johan Thelin at Thu, 2003/12/18 - 6:00am

Last summer Ralf Nolden announced that he was writing a FDL'd book covering C++, Qt and KDE development (http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=105850839120182&w=2 ).

Does anybody know how this effort is going?

Thanks,
Quique


By Quique at Thu, 2003/12/18 - 6:00am

There is no actual work being done which is disappointing.


By Anonymous at Mon, 2003/12/29 - 6:00am