Chiming with my prior experience: My problem with Qt's approach is that their editor is atrocious despite their XML schema for UI layout being excellent. Qt's

Chiming with my prior experience: My problem with Qt's approach is that their editor is atrocious despite their XML schema for UI layout being excellent. Qt's XML schema makes sense and very easily translates to the C++ it generates. If one wishes they can write the XML themself using just their knowledge of the Qt Property System, the Layout System, and the very basics of how the XML is laid out. If they want to just use a designer tool, that's fine too however Qt's UI designer makes life very difficult from the perspective of version control and actual usability. The UI designer doesn't respect any Canonical form of the UI files. This means that each time you save the file it more or less jumbles the entire thing up based on however it decided to hold it in memory. This turns tiny changes (what should be maybe 2-3 lines of XML) into massive ones (100s to 1000s of lines of XML shuffled just enough to shake off any semblance of contiguous history in the VCS). Likewise, it adds arbitrary property data to items that 95/100 times are unintended (setting default geometry sizes based on the sizes of the UI elements in the demo window) or are simply meaningless (storing the default value as a user selected property despite the user requesting to use the default). It doesn't help that the UI of the designer is finicky as hell (layouts) and adding custom UI components is a hassle via the editor while it is exceedingly easy in the XML. It's a bunch of small things like that that have resulted in teams I've worked on in the past refusing or at least strongly discouraging the committing of changes made by UI designer into VCS. It's really a shame too since a good UI editor is a boon for development and Qt has a really nice UI library.