[Development] Qt 5 types under consideration for deprecation / removal in Qt 6

Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at
Mon Jun 10 23:45:22 CEST 2019


Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
> Perhaps you forgot to read the part where I said:
> 
>> Then, it comes a moment when "upstream" stuff has more and more
>> advantages -- more speed (algorithms), more flexibility (e.g. mutex
>> classes and utilities; shared_ptr<T[]>; etc.), more static analysis
>> tooling, and so on, than the equivalent classes offered in Qt.
> 
> So now it's a good time to re-read it.

Perhaps you forgot to read the part where I said:

> 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!)

So now it's a good time to re-read it.


To go through your claimed advantages of the STL point by point:

> more speed (algorithms)

I already answered that:
>> I don't care whether std::sort is faster. If the version of Qt I tested
>> with was fast enough, then I'm perfectly fine with newer versions not
>> being faster, no matter how fast some incompatible implementation
>> elsewhere is (and I don't care whether it happens to ship with my
>> compiler or not).

> more flexibility (e.g. mutex classes and utilities; shared_ptr<T[]>; etc.)

Who says I need that flexibility?

> more static analysis tooling

That's also something one can do without. I will use the static analysis 
tools that work with my code, not the other way round.

>> QtAlgorithms should just be undeprecated. I don't care whether std::sort
>> is faster. If the version of Qt I tested with was fast enough, then I'm
>> perfectly fine with newer versions not being faster, no matter how fast
>> some incompatible implementation elsewhere is (and I don't care whether
>> it happens to ship with my compiler or not).
> 
> I deflect your straw man attack using my amulet of logical fallacies,

This is not a straw man attack, but a direct answer to your "more speed 
(algorithms)" claim. Therefore, your answer is the one that is fallacious.

> roll 3d4, and summon ad-hominem: this is the kind of reasoning of those
> people asking Henry Ford for faster horses.

And this ad hominem attack is not a useful contribution to the discussion in 
any way.

        Kevin Kofler



More information about the Development mailing list