The Qt company's official blog, announcing Qt releases and mobile ports to Android and iOS, with tutorials on new features.
HN commenters cite it for release news such as Qt 5.1 and 5.4 and for tutorials on new features.
The author would benefit greatly from using the appropriate UI components to accomplish his goal instead of kludging a rate limiting mechanism onto his MainWindow's resize implementation.
Instead he could build a graphics scene using QGraphicsScene (http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.1/qtwidgets/qgraphicsscene.html) with a nice normalized coordinate system which logically represents the namespace size in the SSD on UI elements designed to be rectangles. Adding a view of that scene onto his window is trivial, and as an added bonus he gets the power of Qt's scene graph which will be a boon for both performance (http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/09/02/new-scene-graph-renderer/) and portability. Qt will efficiently manage resizes and draw the scene optimally without overhead associated with a re-purposed widget.
His approach does achieve the desired goal and is probably appropriate in some circumstances, but in this instance he should take a step back and assess if there is a greater fundamental problem with his design.
Actually the last few iterations of VS and Office skinning have gotten added into MFC and can be enabled pretty easily for any app. The Ribbon UI is also fully available in MFC and VS. Just no one uses any of this stuff for obvious reasons.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/cc137831.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee354408.aspx
Spotify actually uses Qt but with a custom stylesheet that makes it look more like iTunes. I have no idea why they did this, I think it makes it look terrible and clunky. Read this for more info:
http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2007/11/27/theming-qt-for-fun-and-profit/
I'm currently rewriting my Mac application. Its prototype was written in Qt, but I'm now dropping Qt for several reasons:
1. I demoed my application to my friends and they all complained that it didn't behave exactly like a native Mac application.
2. Qt5 has a lot of UI bugs on Mac OS X.
3. The LGPL license of Qt may not compatible with Mac App Store [1].
4. I could buy the commercial license of Qt, but it's $215/month for Mac OS X. I don't know if my app is going to sell at all, so I can't afford that kind of burden.
[1] http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2014/10/01/benefits-of-the-indie-mobile-licensing/
The could have done even better. Qt for iOS and Qt for Android existed at the time and have now become officially supported (despite all of the major cutbacks Qt development has gone through since then):
http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/07/03/qt-5-1-released/
If they had embraced Qt as a cross-platform layer back then, they could have been "a better Xamarin than Xamarin". That would have been a great way to get developers and users into their ecosystem. Qt apps could "run everywhere", but they'd run best on Nokia phones (where it would be built-in and integrated). Instead...
Qt 5.2 also adds Windows, Mac, and Android extras (platform-specific things for a native feel) [1]. For example, on Windows you can set the task bar progress, and on OS X you can use some native components, such as the toolbar. The OS X documentation is poor, but there is a GitHub repo/mirror for it [2]
[1] http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/09/30/qt-5-2-alpha-available/
[2] https://github.com/qtproject/qtmacextras
I'd be interested to know what kind of problems Qt has with accessibility, I have personally not used the QAccessible* classes yet and would appreciate any tips from the field.
Some potentially interesting blog posts: http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/category/accessibility/ I wonder what came out of the major upgrade in Qt 5, from looking around the web it seems to support MSAA fully and also I2A in some form.