[Development] QList

[Frank Hemer]

On Monday 20 March 2017 16:40:07 Scott Aron Bloom wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Development
> [mailto:development-bounces+scott=towel42.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
> Konrad Rosenbaum Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 07:57
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] QList
> 
> On Mon, March 20, 2017 15:19, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Well, seriously. My answer is the same: Time has only one direction.
> > Qt source and binary compatibility only has one direction. If you want
> > to use Qt in a way it was not intended to be used, then you need to
> > pay the prize, and not ask the community to do so for you.
> > 
> > You can pay by porting to QVector. Or auto. That will work in Qt 5 and
> > Qt 6.
> > You can define your own MyQListOrQVector type alias. Or you can #ifdef.
> > It's
> > up to you.
> 
> Marc, please do not underestimate the impact of laziness! Whether we admit
> it or not: most of us became computer scientists because we're lazy - we
> want to let the machine work for us! ;-)
> 
> Everybody else at least works for for someone who is quite tight-fisted with
> the budget.
> 
> In other words: if Qt 6 forces me to do any significant amount of porting,
> then I'll stay with Qt 5. I was able to port my biggest Qt 4 application to
> Qt 5 because I could promise my client it'd be done in a couple of days and
> he'd gain lots of features too.
> 
> If I have to replace every single occurrence of QList with QVector or auto
> for it to continue working with Qt 6, then I will not get a budget for
> that.
> 
> The community will pay for my laziness by having to support an outdated
> framework for much longer. Lazy people are great at externalizing... :-P
> ==========
> +1
> 
> I had customers on Qt3 for 2 years after Qt4 came out for this reason alone,
> the cost of moving to Qt4 was too large for them to justify the expense.
> 
> When it came to 4 to 5, it was minimal, in fact none of my customers "held
> on to 4" because of the migration path, however, many simply waited for a
> reason.
> 
> Now, myself, and a few others are sitting on Qt 5.5 because of the issues
> with the web browser change in 5.6... but that's another issue....

+1

And QtScript being the next 'another' issue on the horizon ...

Frank