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.