[Development] RFC: Proposal for a semi-radical change in Qt APIs taking strings

[Bubke Marco]

On October 16, 2015 08:53:33 Marc Mutz <marc.mutz at kdab.com> wrote:

> On Friday 16 October 2015 01:32:26 Bubke Marco wrote:
>> On October 16, 2015 00:20:22 Marc Mutz <marc.mutz at kdab.com> wrote:
>> > Guys, this thread is for QStringView. Could we keep it on-topic, please?
>> > There are more than enough bits floating around to create your own
>> > threads (with a tip of the hat to Kai).
>> 
>> Good argument but actually I think before we introduce something new to our
>> string handling we should test it out. Why not add it Qt creator like
>> André proposed and see how it works.
>
> I have already answered why I think this is a bad idea.

Yes, I read it. That why I proposed the experimental playground. It is not so much about QStringView but about the following changes. What is so bad about to play around features before we see all the implications. My experiences whisper to me that if I like an idea too much I should be careful because I love to ignore unpleasant side effects. 

>> I think we don't want to end with something like our model view system or
>> QtControls. Lets test it before we make changes.
>> 
>> I think too we should embrace the standard library more and don't replicate
>> their features.
>
> So you think that QStringView is too experimental and _at the same time_ 
> replicating the standard. Sounds paradoxal to me.

Is it already in the standard? The standard has an experimental stage too. And I  like this concept very much. 

>> A better process to add features would be helpful too.  First they should
>> be experimental so we can change them easily. Second we should be better
>> at removing features. If we do not remove things we will getting slower
>> and slower to add new interesting stuff. It is hard to find the balance
>> but if you are too conservative you will getting slowly less used. We
>> tried to be very innovative with Qml and we learned much about it.
>> 
>> So the question is how can we maximize the usefulness of Qt with our man
>> power. Is replicating the standard library really helping?
>
> My stance on replicating std functionality and the NIH syndrome should by now 
> be above suspicion, even for the casual reader.

It was not about you or me. It was about us an organization. How we can work better together. How can we make a difference, how can we help other developers. 

> I have already argued why I think QStringView is needed, but QArrayView is 
> not.

Sorry if you got the impression it was about you. I should be more careful with my arguments. I try to disconnect arguments from the self. I thinking the argument should stand for himself in his context and not so much by the person who speaks it. 

To make it clear,  I find QStringView promising but still we should explore the concept with all their implications more. Actually I think we sould add more of this kind of changes in an experimental stage like #include <experimental/5.6/QStringView>. So we are forced to evaluate for every release how it works out and if it looks well we move it to the normal include path. So experimental would be an area in every repository so that everybody could try it out.