I think the diff views arise form the fact that Qt lacks unified
redistributable
across platforms (even on the same platform, like Windows).
If there was such redist, a binary compat will be critical, because the user
can
freely upgrade (a system-wide) platform, without being scared about some apps
stop working.
AFAIK this case is only valid on Linux... which is by far the biggest Qt user,
so... it makes scene.
MihailNaydenov
>
>From: Charley Bay <[email protected]>
>To: Corry Not Lazarowitz <[email protected]>
>Cc: [email protected]
>Sent: Tue, May 24, 2011 6:32:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [Qt5-feedback] C++ api to use for UI in addition to QML
>
>
>Corry spaketh:
>
><snip, likes Qt>.
>>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. <snip>
>>
>>let me say this loud and clear.
>>
>>I CAN HANDLE A RECOMPILE!!!
<snip>,
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?
>
>I *totally* agree with Corry.
>
>I understand binary compatibility for "minor dot" releases (e.g., between
>4.7.1
>and 4.7.2), but see no reason for binary compatibility for any other release.
>
>And, if you push hard enough, I don't even care about binary compatibility
>between minor-dot releases. Rather, "minor-dot" releases IMHO are more
>interesting for bug fixing, while preserving *INTERFACE* compatibility.
>
>I *never* expect interface compatibility between "major" dot releases (between
>4.6 and 4.7) nor major release (between 4.8 and 5.0), so binary compatibility
>is
>certainly never relevant there.
>
>INTERFACE COMPATIBILITY: Sometimes, like minor dot releases.
>
>BINARY COMPATIBILITY: Don't care. Never care, really.
>
>--charley
>
_______________________________________________
Qt5-feedback mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
