Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:44:34 +0000, dsimcha wrote: > == Quote from retard ([email protected])'s article >> Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:53:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> > Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: >> >> Right now we are working on a next QtD version. We dropped support >> >> for D1, it is D2 only. I believe Qt suits all your requirements very >> >> well. It's performant - we try to emulate as many C++ types using D >> >> structs as possible, for drawing purposes. So types like QPoint - >> >> are D structs and for drawing lines you can pass D array directly. >> >> No perfromance hit. But of course we cannot avoid all of them, it is >> >> still a binding. Regarding the license, Qt itself is LGPLed, QtD is >> >> boost. you don't have to put any attribution. About stability of >> >> APIs - Qt4 is stable within the major version. At the moment we are >> >> working on signals/slots implementation. It is mostly complete, but >> >> syntax may change. It will hopefully change once and stay forever. >> >> >> >> I would say that QtD is in the state close to that of D2, almost >> >> there, but not quite ready yet. But we intend to release the next >> >> version, which will be ready to use earlier than D2 anyway, I would >> >> say within a month. >> > >> > I salute the decision of going with D2, as well as that of using the >> > Boost license. If there is anything in the language that prevents you >> > from getting things done, please let us know. The availability of QtD >> > concurrently with that of D2 will hopefully push both forward. >> I don't get why Boost license should be used. It's just confusing to >> have yet another free for all license as it basically promises the same >> things as the 2-clause BSD or MIT license. The only difference I see is >> that the author of a Boost licensed software publicly admits that he is >> a Boost fanboy and thinks the license somehow got better after his >> personal deities rewrote it from scratch with NIH mentality. > > Because the Boost license doesn't require attribution for works only > distributed in binary form.
Isn't that kind of insulting towards the original author -- "Your work wasn't worth a crap. I'll take full credit. You get nothing, community gets nothing." Encouraging this kind of licenses seems really weird. Ah yes, zlib was also mentioned - so does one get any advantages when converting an existing D project from zlib/libpng license to boost license?
