[Interest] What don't you like about Qt?

[Björn Piltz]

I switched from qmake to cmake some five+ years ago and while I don't
regret it, it takes the 'I' out of all the IDEs I use. No class wizard or
real refactoring. Creating a new class or worse library or project takes a
lot of blind text editing. This could only be fixed by a full fledged QBS I
guess.

2016-09-21 9:08 GMT+02:00 André Somers <andre at familiesomers.nl>:

>
>
> Op 20/09/2016 om 22:09 schreef Alejandro Exojo:
>
>> On Monday 19 September 2016 18:35:43 Etienne Sandré-Chardonnal wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but for instance you can't move-pass an object between signals and
>>> slots across a queued connection, unless I'm wrong. You have to make your
>>> object implicitely shared. This causes lots of copies when passing a
>>> std::vector, for instance.
>>>
>> The Qt style on designing signals, is to use those for indicating that
>> something happened, but not passing the something in the signal. For
>> example,
>> you get a signal that new data is available (e.g. a datagram), but you
>> don't
>> get the datagram passed as signal argument.
>>
> You don't? Well, you can certainly get a pointer to it (which is cheap, of
> course)...
> See QNetworkAccessManager::finished(QNetworkReply *reply); [signal]
>
> I would say that it is quite normal to signal the finishing of some
> operation _and_ directly pass along the results of that operation. If that
> is a std::vector, then indeed it would result in copying (so I'd go looking
> for a different design there, perhaps use a QVector instead).
>
> André
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20160921/f53d4dca/attachment.html>