On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 07:47:14AM -0500, Coda Highland wrote: >> >> two words: qmake sucks. >> qmake doesn't suck. :/ >> > it does. > > the "grammar" for anything more complicated is questionable, to say the > least. the behavior in quite some corner cases is bizzare - and because > of backwards compatibility, many things cannot be reasonably fixed. > > the code is a complete nightmare, making real maintenance quite tough > work. in particular, getting that thing to be reasonably fast (esp. > under windows) is something nobody managed to do yet.
Well, yes, I do understand those issues quite well; I figure I'm one of the best qmake gurus out there, so I'm quite familiar with how quirky (for lack of a better word) the source code can be. That said, you tempt me. Oh, you tempt me. :P >> >> and, btw, qmake is semi-officially slated for end-of-life, but >> >> nothing concrete is planned yet. >> >> That's a shame, indeed. >> > don't worry, it will be supported at least for the entire qt 4.x series, > of which no end is to be seen yet. we also have no replacement > envisioned - we are simply dissatisfied with the current solution and > are evaluating alternatives. I'd still like to see the replacement tool be as easy to use and extend as qmake; cmake is a serious pain but the KDE zealots are so... zealous. :P You do always have the choice of breaking backwards compatibility with Qt 5.x. I'm sad to hear that the Trolls themselves don't like qmake. I've been defending it for years because it really IS one of the best tools out there for the typical project. /s/ Adam _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
