[Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Tue Mar 23 15:49:25 CET 2021


On 23/03/2021 10.36, Benjamen Meyer via Interest wrote:
> On 3/23/21 10:09 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Also, C++ isn't a dictatorship the way Qt is. Anyone can object to any
>> change, not just on a mailing list, but in person. Anyone can, in theory
>> (in practice, depending on where you live, there may be a non-trivial
>> membership fee required) *vote* against a change. We, as the committee,
>> generally try to be considerate of the community when making changes,
>> and there is quite a lot of emphasis on not breaking existing code, even
>> as far back as C++98.
> 
> How many C++ devs are on those?

Hundreds, which is probably more than the number of people making 
decisions for Qt.

> Likely only those whose companies are paying them to be, and a few
> that got there via academics (I've personally known and worked with
> one person; outside of the folks I've seen here on the Qt lists.)

Even so, that's a lower bar than "you must be an employee of TQtC" (and 
even that is probably not sufficient). The bar also happens to be much 
lower right now due to COVID, since there are no in-person meetings 
happening.

In any case, you've made an unsubstantiated allegation that the 
committee does not care about C++ users. Please provide evidence to back 
that up. So far, all I've seen is "C++ also deprecates stuff". You 
haven't shown that the deprecations are actually *harmful* to the C++ 
community on anything like the scale to which Qt's recent changes have 
been harmful.

Deprecations, even in Qt, aren't always bad. Some recent Qt 
deprecations, however, have caused major pain. Now you are apparently 
claiming that C++ is "just as bad", but I have yet to see that claim 
substantiated.

-- 
Matthew


More information about the Interest mailing list