I prefer using it to the other agentic code apps I have used. It has multi tab worktree isolated agents, sandboxed tools, git integration, built in code editor (with inline generation), searchable document support (i.e. upload your docs, datasheet and you or the agent can use them) and even built in local image generation (using stable diffusion and flux schnell) and asset handling for game developers. Oh it also has a remote feature so you can share the gui or deploy it on a server and access it on the go.
Working on adding text to 3d also.
It is a hobby project that has grown quite large. Feel free to try it out.
Well, on e.g. x86 you have "rep stos" instruction which pretty much amounts to memset in HW.
The operation needs to be blocking otherwise you could of course do it without CPU at all (DMA). But you still have to go through the memory controller and actually write each word of memory.
I think I'm clearly stating my assumptions. GPL3 and LGPL3 requires you to enable the user to replace the GPL/LGPL3 code on your device with the users own version of said code. It does not matter if you link statically.
Now, it would be possible let the user do this and not let it be a problem for your product (in terms of security, reverse engineering, ip theft, etc) but it is more and harder work.
I have used both older version of Qt (LGPL2) without licensing and newer (LGPL3) with licensing in commercial products. The former was not a problem. But using LGPL3 Qt without licensing in a commercial embedded product is a headache (if you are concerned about the problems it might bring), according to me.
You don't agree that you need to provide a way for your customers to replace the Qt libraries? (because that is a fact of LGPL3, read the anti tivoization clause).
Do you see any possible security problems with the above?
Because in reality it means that you give your customers the possibility to run their own code on your hardware. That is a problem for many companies and products.
That is really easy as you say. What you seem to have overlooked are the implications of doing this. You are forced to help customers replace the Qt libraries in your product. That has quite large security/warranty implications.
So ... no thanks!
I do contract work for a company licensing Qt5. I'm hoping for Flutter or something else to kill Qt in the long run.
Your last sentence is a bit hard to comprehend but not paying for Qt and shipping a commercial embedded product is pretty difficult due to the anti-tivoization clauses of GPL3.
I agree with parent poster that flutter is very interesting for Embedded GUI development.
Ok I'll admit I'm not familiar with medical certification. I know that the so called Qt Safe Renderer for ISO26262 compliance is a bit of a joke at least.
I have seen two very big Qt projects being cancelled due to Android. Not the Android Auto app but native Android for IVI.
I don't see any indication of your vision for shareware. The trend is towards more and more software being licensed under licenses such as MIT.
Reasonable? It's about $500 / month / developer with additional royalties if you are shipping devices with Qt firmware. Sure I think Qt/QML is the best UI toolkit available but this crazy pricing is driving me towards any possible alternative. So I'm really hoping Flutter will take off (for desktop/embedded as well, not only mobile).
Note that Qt is GPL3 nowadays so you can't really ship embedded devices with Qt without paying.