> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:54 PM > From: "Konstantin Tokarev" <[email protected]> > To: d3fault <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Development] Why waste energy supporting Python? > > > > 25.04.2018, 04:42, "d3fault" <[email protected]>: > > Supporting Python first class dilutes Qt, please don't. What's next, > > Qt for Java? It's one thing to collect community-developed bindings > > for various other languages into a single place... but something else > > entirely to pay an entire "team" of developers to work on what is > > essentially duplicated effort. That money could instead be spent on > > new Qt features and/or fixing the ever growing list of bugs > > (supporting Python first class will only add to that list of bugs). > > Also, will Python/Qt libs be easily usable from Qt/C++? I doubt it, at > > least not without deploying a python interpreter (and we already have > > to deploy a JavaScript interpreter if we want to use QtQuick). > > > > Modern C++ has come leaps and bounds over recent years in improving > > code simplicity and safety (clang-tidy QtCreator integration FTW)... > > whereas afaik Python still crashes if you don't have your WHITESPACE > > perfectly organized.... bleh. Simply put, encouraging the use of > > Python is the same thing as discouraging the use of Modern, Simple, > > and Safe C++. > > 1. C++ is not modern, not safe, and by far not simple language > (despite having a lot of strengths in different areas) > > 2. A lot of people complain that Qt has very weak support for bindings to > languages other than C++, unlike e.g. GTK+
"The fact that Python is one of the fastest growing programming languages, measured in popularity, is probably also old news in most communities. " It is a mistake to interpret the increased popularity of python as that people are developing apps with it. They are not. The bump in python is solely due to machine learning. However, I first used Qt with Python back in 2005. It was a hoot! But it doesn't make much sense with QML which is even easier. We'd better off putting the resources that would be devoted to python to improving Qt proper, not another language binding. I've given up, quite willingly, Qt+python for QML. I even looked at qml+python but that makes even less sense. If you want to do something with Python, rip JS out of QML and replace it with Python. Continuing to support Python bindings and QML is counter productive. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
