On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:50:42PM +0200, André Pönitz wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:38:25AM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > [...] > > jake had started that "qt-free qbs" project (he got as far as > > eliminating (most) use of qt containers), but it was snuffed out because > > it was unrealistic and counterproductive at that time. even now, no > > patches in that direction will be accepted > > Won't they? > not unless the benefit is immediate.
> > unless a coherent final picture and a credible committment to > > further maintenance is presented. > > Getting rid of implicitly shared containers should be a rather obvious > move when "performance" is part of any "final picture", coherent or > not. > this blanket statement is just wrong if you account for the entire context, which is that qbs both uses and provides qt-like apis which are centered around shared containers, and converting between the two adds significant overhead. _______________________________________________ Qbs mailing list Qbs@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/qbs