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

[Konrad Rosenbaum]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 10:57:01 Rob Allan wrote:
> But even
> then, in most OO languages, this is implemented through strongly-typed
> interfaces - so that if you tried to "publish" a message that wasn't
> defined, you would get a compile error. Most OO languages - Smalltalk, C++
> C#, etc - are strongly typed and have robust compile-time checking, so you
> can't just accidentally type the wrong name in a method call or property
> access, and get no error.

For the record: although Smalltalk has "strong" types (i.e. you cannot extend 
an object without changing its class), it is not statically checked! Variables 
can store any type and it determines whether an object does have a message 
during runtime. The better Smalltalk compilers do warn you (just warn, no 
error) about messages that do not exist anywhere, so you have some safety 
against typos.

OO does not require static checking - in fact polymorphy is much more powerful 
in dynamic languages, like Smalltalk or PHP.

Also: Javascript is not an OO language: you are supposed to have classes, not 
prototypes, for OO.

	Konrad
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20160928/aafef2ff/attachment.sig>