I was thrown by the heavy theory content of the paper. Generally that would not have been an issue, but I spent more time on understanding the programming itself than the underlying theoretical principles behind it (ironically enough, this did not prepare me much for Question 7 as that was the one area of Qt that I skimmed only, Murphy was an optimist).
I also think the textbook is often vague since the examples are almost never accompanied by any meaningful discussions of the thought processes behind them...the Ezust lectures would probably add to one's understanding, but I didn't have all of them.
Anyway, I don't want to sound as if I'm moaning too much. I enjoyed learning about the Qt framework and must admit that I like it quite a lot even though I have no idea how it compares to other, similar frameworks in its league.
Totally agree on the theory part phyzmatix. Having to draw memory diagrams totally threw me, since I didn't even look at that (truthfully, I don't even know where that is in the book). Question 7 was also tough for me.
As far as other frameworks go...look Qt is a good intro I suppose, but I know at least a dozen people who are software developers and they all work with Visual Studio and they all work with C#. If you want to do GUI stuff like this, C# is a much easier, more intuitive language to use. Qt is better than MFC (a widely used C++-based .net framework that does similar things to Qt) I guess, if you HAVE to write GUI code by hand. But if you have VS, I cannot fathom why you'd rather use Qt than MFC. That said, it's just my opinion, as I know some people passionately love Qt for some reason. Whatever floats your boat tbh.
Ok i'm glad your response are similiar to my feelings, question 7 was a right off for me, I think the example exam paper was way easier then the actual exam, i think I got a supplementary exam but dunno if I passed