On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:09:50AM +0100, Bo Thorsen wrote: > Hi Stéphane, > > Yes exactly, the problem is that QML is young. I expect that the > capabilities will expand quite a lot over the coming years, and > file handling is an obvious place for improvements. Qt (the C++ > parts) had over 16 years to develop into the current system, QML > is an infant compared to it.
The main problem of QML developent is that there was (and to a large degree still is) not even an attempt to re-use as much as possible of the existing and field-tested solutions that already exist _in Qt_, or to massage Qt into a shape where such re-use is easily possible. I understand it's fun to do something completely new, and in times of seemingly unlimited resources it even might look attractive. That does not necessarily make it a good idea. There are no unlimited resources. A "tabula rasa" approach ignoring past problems and their existing solutions is not sustainable. Worse, the current approach already failed to deliver on some core promises, like "easy toolability", suggesting that the road to a full solution will be as bumpy as any of the alternatives. The QML world will run into a similar set of backend problems as the C++ world did during the last two decades, and it will take several years to mature on its own. The only viable shortcut is a conscious attempt to share solutions between the two stacks, i.e. to have high-level C++ interfaces to "most of Qt" accessible from _thin_ gui wrappers on top. Qt had a tradition of finding reasonable levels of abstraction, and it seems pretty much alive in the backend. I see no particular reason why this could't be extended to the frontend again in 2013. (Happy New Year, by the way...) Andre' I am speaking purely for myself. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest