On Sunday, 23 July 2017 15:20:21 PDT Phil Bouchard wrote: > > For two reasons: > > 1) your analogy is not correct > > 2) you're basing the entire case on an assumption that is not proven > > > > You could be building a great new language. Or a house of cards. > > It's based on the brand new C++14 standards so the roots are strong but > it removes its complexity as you can see in the generated C++ code.
That proves nothing. You can write really crappy applications and frameworks on a good foundation. And you can write really good applications despite bad foundations, working around them. > Also Javascript is hopeless in regards to inheritance so I'm using C++ > conventions there. I'm not disputing the ickiness of the language. I am disputing your unproven assertions. And in one case, *disproven* assertions (see Robin's email). -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
