On 5/3/21, 11:40 AM, "Interest on behalf of Matthew Woehlke"
<interest-boun...@qt-project.org on behalf of mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't it obvious? Once upon a time, before they "lost their way", Qt was
useful to him. He was passionate about *that* Qt and wants it back.
I understand *exactly* how he feels.
I get the frustration. But I think the world moved, and Qt didn't really have
a choice. If you are building for a single OS and single (fixed) hardware, you
can keep code stable. How do you do that when you are cross platform and have
to make changes to support M1 chips in new Macs?
I don't think you can, certainly not for every OS and Qt version that worked
before. If you need specific hardware/OS supported longer term, but need
updates to Qt, Qt has the option of paying for commercial support for that
configuration. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
Expecting Qt to work for new compilers/OSes, but not break _anything_ doesn't
seem realistic when even the C++ language itself is changing.
What would you have Qt do differently?
Brett
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
