On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:43:26 +0000, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 11:18:17 UTC, ketmar wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:16:13 +0000, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: >> >>> Quite a few niche-libraries are C++ only. >> >> throw 'em away, they full of bugs and broken code anyway. > > Qt? AFAIK, it's C++-only, and it's widely considered to be one of the > best GUI toolkits out there.
for C++. all so-called "bindings" are ugly as hell. mostly 'cause Qt is not a "GUI toolkit", but a programming platform, tied to C++. using it as library outside of C++ world is a huge mistake. > but the fact that someone chooses to use > C++ instead of C for their library doesn't make it junk it does. there is no single reason to write a *library* in C++, if it's intended to be used outside of C++ world. > and plenty of folks care primarily about C++, in which case, > it's a non-issue. so let 'em be in their wonderful C++ world. no need to drag that abomination to other worlds.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
