[Interest] [Development] Windows 7 support will be dropped in Qt 6
maxmaini at gmail.com
Wed Jun 17 16:22:49 CEST 2020
I have no real opinion on dropping or not the support for Win7, but I
don't get how the specific needs of some
industries (having people that can work on legacy/non-modern platforms
and/or languages) are related to the
rant against the fact Qt6 could drop Win7 support.
What are some asking ? For Qt6 not to evolve too much so that it
doesn't become too different from Qt3 ?!
We all stick to command prompts even for tasks that are better tackled with
a gui, because if we go gui then
some people won't like command prompt any more ?
I've worked in sectors where the platforms and tools lag behind the
bleeding edge by years when not decades.
These industries just have to pay enough to convince the ones that can
learn (or that already know) how to work
on their outdated platforms. It has always been like this, nothing new.
If you keep some VCR tapes with your wedding and your 20 years old VCR
breaks down, you're going to have
to pay silly money to get it repaired and, when not possible, even more to
get it rebuilt.
Up to you to decide if you want to pay when the VCR dies or if you want to
pay to move your videos to
something more recent before it dies.
But some seem to be asking everybody to not move to more recent stuff so
that they can still live with their VCR.
I'm not sure I agree on the principle.
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:53, Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com>
> On 16/06/2020 18.59, Jonathan Purol wrote:
> >> it's well "known" that you can teach C programmers Java, but you
> >> can't teach Java programmers C
> > How is that well known? What studies can you provide for this?
> No studies, but it seems to be a common attitude among most or all
> technical professionals with which I've worked.
> That said, yes, there is some exaggeration there. Obviously, some people
> *can* learn "real" programming regardless of what they started out
> doing. The fact is, however, there are plenty more people that *can't*;
> people that can only perform certain tasks with the help of
> technological "crutches". For evidence, look no further than the large
> number of people that struggle with basic arithmetic.
> You may be blessed to not have to work with many of these people
> (indeed, they aren't the sort of people that make desirable employees in
> any case). What I was saying was intended to reflect Roland's point,
> which is that there are plenty of people that can muddle through
> "programming" tasks when you give them an "easy" language (e.g. "Qt6"
> something in e.g. Qt3 + C++. Yes, there *are* people that can learn, but
> they are less common than the muddlers that can passably do the former
> job and are hopeless when it comes to the latter.
> I think the *real* point is that if none of your candidates already know
> "real" programming, it can be difficult to separate the ones with real
> underlying skill from the muddlers.
> > Most of my local universities teach Java, do you want to imply those
> > people will never ever be able to learn C?
> All of them? No. *Some* of them? Absolutely.
> > People can learn, people can change. All that's required is the
> > incentive to do so, which is probably where you should have put your
> > argument at instead: If Qt migrates away and drops win7 support, you
> > get fewer and fewer people over time that have the incentive to learn
> > the skills required to still develop for older versions.
> That was, indeed, part of the point.
> However, I also believe that not everyone is capable of every task, no
> matter how incentivized. (Plus, not everyone has the necessary
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Interest