[Development] As Qt contemplates its future..

[Randall O'Reilly]

On Apr 16, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Em sexta-feira, 14 de abril de 2017, às 22:38:25 PDT, Randall O'Reilly 
> escreveu:
>> One of the major innovations in Go is that it avoids all of those problems.
>> You only ever write things once, in one place (no .h vs. .cpp), and, like
>> an interpreted language, the only distribution mechanism *is the source
>> itself*.  There is no such thing as binary compatibility.
> 
> Because there's no such thing as binary distribution in the first place. That 
> means you cannot provide a component without the source. If we insisted on all 
> Qt users simply recompiling every time that Qt changed, then we could apply 
> the same to C++ and only retain source compatibility. That is, after all, what 
> Boost does.

That’s why the Go folks worry so much about super-fast compile times..

> By the way, is it even possible to distribute a binary application?

Yes, the final product of the compilation process is a (fat) static binary.

> [cut]
>> hence my advocacy of Qt potentially investing some effort here.
> 
> Seems like we already have a binding to Go. What else do we need?

Yeah, but it’s not native Go, so it doesn’t really advance anything.  Potentially a usable stop-gap but given the limitations with the way that Go and C++ interface, I doubt many people using Go would find it a satisfying solution.  The proposal is that this is an opportunity for “next gen Qt” not a plea for a port of the existing product..

Cheers,
- Randy