Sorry but I must chime in here, since both Roland and Matthew brought this point up.
> it's well "known" that you can teach C programmers Java, but you can't teach Java programmers C How is that well known? What studies can you provide for this? Currently it just sounds like elitism at its finest to me if I'm honest. I started with Java, and can now write C pretty well. Most of my local universities teach Java, do you want to imply those people will never ever be able to learn C? I have a few friends that started in Java, some even staying there for years before moving on to C, C++, Rust, Haskell, etc. > It's like trying to teach someone who never took the training wheels off > their bike how to ride a bike that can't ever have training wheels or go > slow. So.. Every child that ever learnt to ride a bike? We all have to start somewhere after all, it just takes a little while. I'm not disagreeing with your point. If you hire someone to do X, you'd probably not want to hire someone that can do Y, but promises that they can learn X really fast if you let them. But the way this was portraied didn't seem quite right to me. People can learn, people can change. All that's required is the incentive to do so, which is probably where you should have put your argument at instead: If Qt migrates away and drops win7 support, you get fewer and fewer people over time that have the incentive to learn the skills required to still develop for older versions. Sincerely, Jonathan Purol _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest