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

[André Pönitz]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:43:37AM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> > I quite like QML as a declarative markup language, but am less enthused about
> > JavaScript. It seems like kind of a toy programming language. I'm a bit
> > shocked that you can write "code" where you can happily call functions or
> > access properties that don't even exist on the target object. 
> 
> Enter OOP. In classic OOP there are no function calls, you just send messages to
> object, and object dispatches them "somehow"
> 
> Qt metaobject system has same properties, e.g. you can assign or read
> non-existing properties, connect to missing slots, etc.

And that's why one doesn't use the MO system *extensively* in non-trivial applications.

It's powerful and dangerous. It's extremely useful to bridge some gaps that the
core language left, like "soft" dependencies between plugins or introspection for
generated bindings. Beyond that? No, thanks. Definitely.

> >It is so easy to introduce a typo, or to remove a function or property that is
> >still needed somewhere else, and not realise it. You won't get a compile error,
> >or even a runtime crash, just strange behavior and maybe something in the
> >console log. And having functional code spread across C++ and JavaScript seems
> >less than ideal. I'm kind of getting used it, and trying to do only
> >layout-related stuff in the JavaScript, and anything that is more related to
> >application logic in C++. So you can certainly make it work - but I still feel
> >you could produce a more robust application if all of your coding could be done
> >in C++ and none in JavaScript.
> 
> Don't you have unit tests?

To catch mis-typed identifiers?

No. Why should I? I have a compiler.

Andre'