[Development] Qt 5 types under consideration for deprecation / removal in Qt 6
annulen at yandex.ru
Sun Jun 9 00:26:34 CEST 2019
09.06.2019, 01:02, "Kevin Kofler" <kevin.kofler at chello.at>:
> Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
>> In other words, the advantages of keeping the Qt equivalents start to be
>> (seriously) questioned. We're therefore left with the question of what
>> to do with these equivalents.
>> * We could play the catch-up game, but that requires a development
>> investment that is simply not there any more, and is even questionable
>> (is it the job of people developing Qt to rewrite algorithms widely
>> available elsewhere?).
>> * We could move the Qt equivalents into a "support library", maybe with
>> deprecation warnings, maybe without. I'm not sure of the traction of
>> this idea these days, but IIRC having "Qt4Support" was frowned upon when
>> Qt 5 was being shaped. (Thus QtAlgorithms was left in QtCore, deprecated.)
>> * We could just deprecate and tell people to migrate away. That's kind
>> of the whole point of this thread, and comes with all the annoyances,
>> and people reimplementing them downstream because they still want the
>> convenience of a qSort(vector) over std::sort(vector.begin(),
>> * We could keep things where they are, supported, thus offering the
>> easier APIs; but simply reimplement them on top of the "upstream"
>> equivalents. (Ignore the possible ABI break.)
> There is one option missing:
> * We could just keep the Qt equivalent as is, without adding the features
> of the STL equivalent if there is no manpower to port them to the Qt
> equivalent. Developers using the Qt version are happy with the Qt version
> as is, and those that are not can always go and use the STL. There is no
> point in deprecating or splitting out those classes, they should just
> remain in QtCore where they belong.
>> Here's where the "extension" bites us: if the Qt equivalent offered
>> something that upstream is not offering, and we can't reimplement it,
>> then what do we do? Dropping support for it would be, at best, an API
>> break; and at worst, a _silent_ behavioural change.
> That's why you should just not do that, and instead keep the Qt
> implementation. Let the users decide for themselves whether they prefer the
> advantages of one (Qt) or the other (STL) implementation.
> I, for one, don't give a darn about all those new C++11/14/whatever STL
> features. I don't want to touch the STL with a 10-foot pole! The best thing
> Qt can do with the STL is pretend it doesn't exist. (I wish QT_NO_STL were
> still supported!)
Do you really wish to touch C++ with a ten foot pole? It's such a horrible,
inconsistent, and complicated language! There are many higher-level languages
on market which can make you more productive, and you surely won't need to use
More information about the Development