Kuba,
> Qt's drawing code is full of such optimizations, and it represents
> man years of effort. This is the only way to get XCircuit to
> perform well IMHO.
There was a time when I considered porting to Qt. At the time, both
Qt and GTK were in a comparatively primitive state. It was not clear
to me that either one would survive very long. I can't say that I'm
convinced of the long-term survival of Qt even now, but I can't argue
that well-organized code has a much higher chance of survival, and
xcircuit needs the reorganization.
> PS. Tim, please don't be defensive -- I'm not criticizing your code.
> I know full well in what software environment it came to be, and what
> the limitations were at the time. I don't expect you to have to
> publicly defend your choices.
Oh, just ignore me. I can't help it. I think it's helpful, though, to
know where bits of code are coming from. If the code is derived from a
workaround of a technical X11 issue, then it's more obviously something
to be thrown out at the first opportunity. I have an assortment of other
reasons for suspicious-looking code, which include trying out a new idea
for a user interface, testing a new algorithm I thought up, or just making
use of old code I have already lying around in other projects. Any of them
could stay or go based on their own merits (or lack thereof), but would
certainly warrant a closer inspection than some workaround hack.
---Tim
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Dr. R. Timothy Edwards (Tim) | email: [email protected] |
| Open Circuit Design, Inc. | web: http://opencircuitdesign.com |
| 22815 Timber Creek Lane | phone: (301) 528-5030 |
| Clarksburg, MD 20871-4001 | cell: (240) 401-0616 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
Xcircuit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.opencircuitdesign.com/mailman/listinfo/xcircuit-dev
