Eugene wrote:I have only one reason against Qt: It is not lightweight at all, it have much more that is needed for Urho Editor.
While that is true... who cares?
Honestly, application/download size is a problem of the past, at least in non-mobile environments. And nobody is going to distribute the editor to mobile
Besides, while Qt has much more than any single application will ever use, it is nicely split into modules/shared libraries. When packaging a Qt app, only used parts will be packaged with it (automatically).
It does increase the complexity of building Urho3D, though, so I'd at least keep the editor optional.
The pros far outweigh the cons with Qt.
For example, I could imagine making changes to the editor for a project at hand to distribute the editor with the application.
The current editor.... it is just not something you'd give into the hands of an end user. It's just too rough, and not even nowhere similar to editors people are used to like Unity, Maya, etc.
So currently, if I wanted to distribute an editor with an application using Urho3D, I'd have to build it myself - which I'd most likely do using Qt, since - well, there is no alternative reaching its quality, not cross-platform, anyway.
Just having to adjust an existing editor for my needs would save much