[Development] What kind of airplane we want to build?

Corentin Jabot corentin.jabot at gmail.com
Wed Jan 20 21:44:12 CET 2016

First of, it should be ensured future planes fit on the tarmac and that
people now how to fly these things. Major breakage are a huge pain.
Unavoidable minor breakage are painful enough, we always seem to
underestimate the cost of any stack change. The plane metaphor still holds.
You need to rebuild your production line, teach your staff, assert the damn
thing and then you spend the next tens year working all the kinks. It's
easier for Qt, but still a cost.

That being said...

The Qt framework, the whole KDE environment and all the app using Qt are a
massive part of the C++ ecosystem. And yet there is this great divide
between Qt and the rest of the C++ world. It funnily goes both ways. It
would be great if the Qt community was more involved with C++, whether by
participating in the standardization process, conferences and such. And
maybe that would in turn help the greater C++ community have a better
understanding of Qt ?

A few days ago I learned KDAB was a member of the vulkan group. how cool is
that ? But when I think about it, it's nothing but the logical move.

Then, there is moc. I observed C++ devs outside of the Qt community will
often use moc as an argument in favor of not using Qt. It seems more of an
ideological argument that anything else. Whereas where I stand, moc is what
make Qt great. Of course I which moc was more flexible and more easily
integrated with a foreign build system but still. I don't think C++ will
ever have half of the introspection Qt provides. And don't even get me
started on CopperSpice. Ugh.

On the other hand, qmake should probably not be recommended way to build a
Qt app in the future.

I cannot point to specific apis or pain points because again, I value a
smooth / pragmatic evolution. Take QSharedPointer. it really do not have a
reason to be beside the fact removing it will do nothing but cost thousands
of hours to get rid of across the industry.

Overall, the current approach of allowing idiomatic C++ apis when doable is
quite good. Qt do age quite well. Maybe using the std in example/snippets
more ?

The Standard has great engines. Qt has comfy seats. Lets have a plane with
great engines and comfy seats.

2016-01-20 20:16 GMT+01:00 charleyb123 . <charleyb123 at gmail.com>:

> Thiago sayeth:
> <snip, airplane metaphor, turbo prop v. jet engine>
>> So no, I don't think we risk becoming irrelevant against other airplane
>> makers
>> anytime soon. Our competitor are those transatlantic heavyweight ships
>> (HTML5).
> <snip>,
> LOL!!!
> That's actually a very good point (in addition to the fact that I really
> did Laugh-Out-Loud).
> C++ is growing, and native-client apps are growing (mobile, embedded,
> desktop, cloud).
> The Qt value-proposition gets you native on that platform better than
> anything else, including the C++ Standard (which is merely a language
> standard, and not a technology platform).
> We would likely get quite a few blank stares when walking into a bar for
> programmers (do those exist?) and shouting, "C++ is easily approachable!"
>  However, we'd get many nods-of-agreement saying the same about Qt.
> --charley
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20160120/4bb12baf/attachment.html>

More information about the Development mailing list