2012/3/8 Diego Iastrubni <diegoi...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Alexis Menard > >> >> > Actually, I tested about 2 years ago the Digital Mars C++ compiler. This >> > failed nicely and was not able to compile the container classe, and you >> > were >> > aware of this :) >> > >> > I might be bored again and test if the compiler now works better. Is >> > anyone >> > interested? >> >> Realistically speaking how many users we are targeting here? > > > 2, Maybe PI, probably E people :) > > >> >> Last version was almost 2 years ago. Does it even run on modern >> Windows? I'm not even sure its status concerning 64 bits. >> >> Not even yourself wants to try it again. You even mentioned that you >> *tested* it so I believe you don't even ship your app code with this >> compiler. > > > I was between jobs 2 years ago and got bored. That time I started looking > also at clang. I did not ship any code compiled using any of those > compilers. > > Back then the compiler I tested did not support for partial templates. I see > messages there claiming to support C++0x. Hell, if it works, do you really > care adding 2-3 new qmake.specs?
And who will maintain them when new stuff is added/refactored/renamed? You can't just drop files like this... > >> So maintaining some stuff just for the sake of it leads to wasted >> effort where people could be *more* useful. > > > You are under the impression that my working on this on my spare time, not > paid by anyone will take time from this project. I kindly disagree. If you contribute them on your spare time fine, but what I want to make sure is that we are clear on the level of support for it. > >> >> It's in Qt4 the way it is, then it's fine. >> >> We supported way too long broken and old compilers. >> > > So, the barrier for Qt5 is a compiler that supports C++0x? Not a bad idea. I didn't said anything about C++0x and I seriously don't think this should be the barrier. I was more talking about compiler buggy with templates for example. > If we want to build modern applications, on moden operating systems, then > modern tools are a must. Yes but is this compiler fits in the "modern" category? > > From my point of view as a developer - Qt5.0, Qt5.1 will be more or less > beta designed for earliy adopters which will have new tools anyway. If by > the time Qt5.2 comes there are new compilers witghout C++0x support - they > can die cause lack of market. > You focus on the C++0x support that was absolutely not my point here. I think we should support Qt5 without C++0x as it was a fresh standard and that it will take time to get it implemented correctly and properly and all major compilers. The fact that you can use Qt5 with C++0x support is a plus and should be considered like this for now. > I assume Qt4 will not vanish for the next 2 years, and by then Qt5+C++0x > compilers will be more mature and popular, so people still have tools to > develop great applications. Yes, Qt4 is great, it actually runs my PC with > linux. > > Again - just my point of view as indipendent developer. Maybe more > commercial customers will have different opinions then me. > > With some luck maybe Qt5 will push the usage of C++0x and leaving legacy > compilers. > > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > -- Alexis Menard (darktears) Software Engineer INdT Recife Brazil _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
