[Qt-interest] The C++ language committee

[Mihail Naydenov]

Please, please, don't hijack the topic with flame wars.

Here is the link to the talk (which is OT BTW):
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1204845/

(the bandwidth is terrible; Qt is mentioned only in once sentence near the end (user questions IIRC), he discusses the committee involvement several times across the talk)




----- Original Message ----
> From: Mihail Naydenov <mlists at ymail.com>
> To: qt-interest at trolltech.com
> Sent: Fri, April 16, 2010 1:59:52 PM
> Subject: [Qt-interest] The C++ language committee
> 
Dear Qt,

Few weeks back I was watching a talk given by Bjarne 
Stroustrup about c++ and its future. 
We all the story - C++0x and 
its features.

Two things however draw my attention:

First 
he mentions Qt, but as a negative example, he even added (IIRC) "at 
least they did not come up with a proprietary language like some others" sighting Apple .

Second he urges everybody (*especially* real 
world app. developers) to participate in shaping the c++ language. This 
is done trough a representative in the committee .


Now, 
considering Qt is the most widely used, and possibly the best C++ 
framework, in the heart of some of the most demanding real word apps, 
its is quite unfortunate it has no representative there!

The 
benefits for the C++ community and the language itself will be huge. 
People love Qt. They not use it not because "its a necessary evil" (like c++ 
IMHO itself is, not to mention the academic Boost (which does the job 
never the less)), they use it, because they love it.
*This* is the 
real world modern C++. 
This C++ *should* be represented to let the 
committee know what (the majority) of C++ devs use and want to use 
today.

Im talking here both form API and technology  perspective. But even if one the two gets some penetration into the standard c++ it 
will be a good thing.
Of course technologies are more important. 
Why not let the committee know what is really needed from signal and slots 
implementation in the real world. What is need for a string 
implementation. For concurrency library, etc... 

Qt has *a lot* 
of experience, why not make it public, be vocal where C++ must change.

Communicating the issues within the committee itself seams to be The Right Thing to 
do. 
And in time we might see Qt (6.0) written in standard C++ ;)
Until then, there will always be that "I know Qt is great, but *they use a 
precompiler!*"

MihailNaydenov
      
> 
_______________________________________________
Qt-interest mailing 
> list

> href="mailto:Qt-interest at trolltech.com">Qt-interest at trolltech.com
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest