I could rant about a lot of things QT here, I generally like it, and I like the cross platform nature of it. In fact, People often tell me how "hard" it is to program cross platform, and I laugh, and point to QT and say I have no trouble. I know the APIs of windows and linux, and never work on a mac, so when QT falls short on something, I just write the functionality for both, but thats not too often. However, there is one thing I absolutely hate about QT. Its the developers literal *obsession* with binary compatibility, and their obsession with wacko means of maintaining it. This latest use of javascript is just the most ludicrous in the set.
let me say this loud and clear. I CAN HANDLE A RECOMPILE!!! Let me also say this, I don't mind updating code for new/better/cooler/etc functionality. If you want to make the transition smooth, the name your interfaces with the versions they support, heck with that, use interfaces in the first place. (Standard C++ may not include the keyword, but classes with only pure virtual functions are allowed, and you can stick to the paradigm...). Then you have your source compatitibility, and you could go one step further, and keep a qt472.dll around for those who don't want to use the interfaces in qt473.dll and maintain "binary compatibility". This problem has been solved by so many people without placing the restrictions trolltech has already placed, and without switching to javascript. Lastly, I'll say this, obsession with maintaining binary compatibility is like an obsession with making the waterfall development model work. In theory, totally possible, like most things that work in theory, they rarely work in practice. Same goes here. Why not instead focus on making the best toolkit possible, and assume the developers using your libraries are big boys and can handle an upgrade? Thats literally all I'm going to say on the matter as well. I'm not going to argue this, if it keeps up, I'll just go back to the old way of doing things, without QT. On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, 16 de May de 2011 12:03:30 Serhiy wrote: >> So my point is that since QT itself uses C++ why not to have C++ api >> for new features as well. > > Because we lock ourselves to that API, due to C++'s binary compatibility > requirements. > > We like to have a minimal API that addresses the use-cases. We'll be doing it > once in QML. Doing it again in C++ is more work and also harder to change > later. > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org > Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks > PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: > E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 > > _______________________________________________ > Qt5-feedback mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback > > _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
