[Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?
Marc Mutz
marc.mutz at kdab.com
Fri Dec 4 08:49:14 CET 2015
On Friday 04 December 2015 02:56:11 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Thursday 03 December 2015 14:14:19 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > That depends on how big the remainder is. I argue that we're relevant
> > enough that our own direction is big enough to be of relevance.
>
> That didn't come out right. Rephrasing:
>
> Qt has enough market share by itself that we can choose our own direction
> and still be relevant. We are allowed to disagree with what others do.
Yes, but only if we know *better*.
I very much doubt that more than very few people in Qt development have the
knowledge to objectively overrule the accepted C++ authorities. I myself have
seen over and over again that how I thought a feature should be used was blown
to smithereens by members of the committee, usually rightfully so.
So the default should be to follow what the greater C++ community is doing,
while *divergence* from that needs to be argued for.
Everything else is approaching hubris, imo.
> we don't use exceptions
...and look at the sorry state of error handling in Qt - every class does it
differently... It's ok not to use exceptions, but not having a consistent error
handling strategy doesn't put us into a position to throw that stone.
> we don't use underscores
... except we do (grep "qt_"). And there's *nothing* wrong with that!
Thanks,
Marc
--
Marc Mutz <marc.mutz at kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts
More information about the Development
mailing list