faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: QT not quite C++
by Anonymous Lurker on Thursday 15/Apr/2004, @03:00
|
Hi all, thanks.
These posts have been quite productive for me, as It was easy to read between lines that what the GTKmm people say is true, it's just that not many people find their arguments convincing.
Basicaly what I have learn from these posts is that QT is non-standard C++, limited by the support of old compilers, monolythic but complete and pragmatic. I already learn that "modern" is a buzzword and is non-sense but "have fun with it" is a deterministic technical feature.
And not forgetting the Propietary/GPL license, and not having even the GPL on Windows (and all my family use OpenOffice and Mozilla on Windows so please stop saying nonsese about free software on Windows beeing stupid).
Ok, if I choose to jump to C++ I have made my mind up clearly.
BTW: I am a C and PHP coder but make no GUI work by the moment, and no I have no time to test GTK and QT and C++ before choosing a GUI framework, that's why I made these comments, I just don't believe anybody's PR (neither GTKmm nor Trolltech) and need an independent opinion. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: QT not quite C++
by Lubos Lunak on Thursday 15/Apr/2004, @05:18
|
Qt is standard C++, otherwise it wouldn't compile with g++ obviously. And moc, BTW, is actually not a preprocessor, the only preprocessor used is the standard C++ preprocessor (well, at least if I understand the difference between a preprocessor and a code generator or whatever the proper name for this functionality is). In other words, Qt C++ code is compiled as is just like any other C++ code, and hence it's standard C++ as well. The difference between Qt and gtkmm is basically the fact that they're different.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: QT not quite C++
by Richard Dale on Thursday 15/Apr/2004, @08:13
|
Yes, complaining about moc code generation is like complaining that it's wrong to generate code from a Qt Designer .ui file, because you should only have 'pure C++' in your project. After all C++ wouldn't be any fun if it wasn't 'difficult' - you need to show off to lesser programmers that you'd actually mastered it. And of course those 'hand crafted' widgets are so much better than any autogenerated nonsense from a .ui file.
But I'm personally not a fan of C++, although I can code in it, because I just find it too much of a headache. If I was a PHP/C programmer I think I'd try out PyQt or PyGtk perhaps, not C++. There is absolutely no such thing as 'C++ for Dummies', whichever toolkit you use it is very, very hard.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: QT not quite C++
by David on Thursday 15/Apr/2004, @06:50
|
The GTKmm people produce standards for C++? Wow. You learn something new every day.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: QT not quite C++
by Micha Bieber on Thursday 15/Apr/2004, @08:02
|
>Ok, if I choose to jump to C++ I have made my mind up clearly.
This is seldom the case, if the mind has been burdened by too much emotions :->
The point, that you get here sarcastic answers is caused by your very own posting. 'modern!=good' and 'old!=bad'. In fact, these words alone have no meaning at all without careful evaluation. The technical points you missed in your flurry of excitement to remain independent have been brought to you by some other posters. I can only repeat my advice. Use the librariy(ies) and form a own view on them. Nobody here here will make you do something.
Micha
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
