It's interesting how many people say this. Much of it is great compared to an abysmal baseline of terrible APIs often in C++ ...

... but they have a magnificent 'context' problem: Qt is complicated and you never really know where you are in the architecture. There are 8 'Window' classes and you don't know if it's for Widgets, QML/Quick, QGraphics, or legacy or what.

I double-dare you to go and figure out what JS engine they currently use and for what. Because it's evolved so much over the years, and they keep legacy stuff around, StackExchange comments are poorly noted with versioning, it's a labrynth of disinformation.

There are neat articles you can find if you dig, but my god, you shouldn't have to dig.

I learn 'foundational' things about QT all the time, and to add salt they have an article where they dare to indicate it's 'our' problem for their incoherent documentation, they literally state 'Dunning-Kolberg' effect on one of their pages! Total gaslighting.

The desperately need 'overview' documentation that are accessible and put everything in context - and especially it needs to be just presented in an organized way - literally the Left Hand Menu of their docs jumps around and you have no context. You're looking at Qt5 classes, search for something and only Qt6 variations come up, you have to flip to Google etc..

Some Qt classes are well documented, but there are serious problems. I honestly think Qt would be 25% more popular if they just explained things more clearly.