[Development] Perceptions/Understandings of the QML language [was: Question about Qt's future]

[André Pönitz]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 03:02:50PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em seg 28 abr 2014, às 23:34:21, André Pönitz escreveu:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:12:47AM -0700, Alan Alpert wrote:
> > > Yes, I agree that more rigorous and agreed definitions would be
> > > helpful. It also takes time, and impedes innovation, so I'm not sure
> > > if we're quite mature enough to "nail down" QML just yet. Should be
> > > soon though, in the next few years.
> > 
> > To get this straight: After five years of development the "Maintainer" of
> > the Qt Declarative module is neither able nor willing to give a simple
> > definition of what "QML" is.
> 
> I can't also explain very well what QtCore is and it has existed for 10 years 
> now.
>
> It's the low-level interface to the OS and basic and tool classes, plus a part 
> of the XML support, but not all of it. And the item models. And the state 
> machine. Oh, and a few more tidbits that ended up in QtCore because they are 
> not really graphical in nature.

To me this already looks a bit closer to a definition than 'agreed
definitions ... impedes innovation, ... not sure if we're quite mature
enough to "nail down" $X just yet.'

The fact that Qt Core has some kitchen sink aspects is to some degree
historically explainable, and to some degree not even bad. In any case,
the module maintainer seems to be aware of deviations of the actual
state from some optimal state.

Andre'