[Interest] QtArg

[R. Reucher]

On Wednesday 11 April 2012 16:46:55 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> So this isn't why I "fear" Qt 5.  What makes me uneasy is how Qt seems
> to slowly (but surely?) deprecate C++ for JavaScript.  I believe all GUI
> code should be in C++.  JavaScript, like all dynamic and weakly-typed
> languages, always looked to me as a language for lazy people who don't
> care about runtime errors and view the extremely helpful compile-time
> checks as an "annoyance."  Qt was always a C++ toolkit, and now it seems
> it's slowly becoming a JavaScript toolkit instead.  All would be OK if
> JavaScript was offered through bindings.  But making it a native part,
> without a way to get to its functionality with pure C++ code; that just
> sucks and doesn't make sense.  Common sense suggests JavaScript is a
> high-level interface to the low-level C++ parts.  Qt decided to go
> against common sense here.  And it kind of feels like we're being
> betrayed; after all these years sticking with Qt, it might turn its back
> on us, hanging out with its new homies, the mobile folks, because we're
> not cool enough anymore to hang around with.
> 
> Anyway, I'm ranting too much since Qt 5 has not really deprecated C++.
> I just don't like the fact that I might need to put a "yet?" in the
> previous sentence.
OK, these are statements I can mostly agree with! Yes, it's really a shame 
that JavaScript shall become a more "important" language. It's the opposite, 
and I will not be supporting that move. Also, I guess that many here think 
similarly.

But you shouldn't really "fear" that... "superior technology" will never be 
based on JavaScript. And again, I see it as a very high-level *alternative* 
and nothing else. We should keep it that way and not push it by discussing 
this matter in a sense that it scares us :).

Cheers, René
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20120411/82335771/attachment.html>