[Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

[Marc Mutz]

On Wednesday 09 December 2015 15:52:04 Rolland Dudemaine wrote:
> If I may ask, what is wrong with not using features of a language?

Nothing. Except that new generations of programmers will look at the code 
written in 90s style, label it "legacy", treat it with utmost disgust, slow 
down to a crwawl when making changes to it and demand 150% of the rates when 
going in.

This whole story of "code is written once, and read many times" is wrong (the 
"once" part). Code should be continuously evolved to stay current. Just try 
compiling Qt 3.x with a current GCC and you will know why.

> I've always been a fan of Qt, not because of its conciseness,
> portability, versatility (although these help), but really because a C++
> beginner, a seasoned C engineer unfamiliar with C++, and several other
> non-expert types can read and understand the Qt API, and also write
> basic applications.
> 
> Preaching pragmatism, I'd happily vote for "what's convenient" inside
> the Qt implementation, but also vote against the C++11-ification of the
> API.

This discussion is not about the Qt API. It is about its implementation.

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