[Development] What kind of airplane we want to build?
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Sat Jan 23 01:23:30 CET 2016
Bubke Marco wrote:
> I think many feel that C++ is rapidly changing.
I feel it's actually TOO rapidly changing. C++11 even threw out C
compatibility, not only by not adopting all C99 improvements (e.g. VLAs),
but also by subtly interpreting even as simple valid C90 code as "auto x =
1.5;" in an incompatible way. (OK, that code is not valid C++98, but at
least a C++98 compiler would tell you what is wrong with it, C++11 just
silently gives it a different meaning.)
I consider the fix of the "have to write '> >' to close double templates"
issue as the most useful improvement in the entire C++11 standard.
> Maybewe see that we don't have to change so much. Maybe we find out the
> change would be so massive that we cannot call it Qt 6 anymore. There are
> many maybes because the future is uncertain but we handled uncertainty in
> the past so why we should not do it in the future?
Please do not make major changes to Qt that break all existing code, or even
replace it with something entirely different. It causes major pain. There is
useful software out there still stuck on Qt 3 years after Qt 4.0.0, and the
changes you suggest would be even much worse than the Qt 3 to 4 transition.
More information about the Development