[Qt-interest] The argument for Qt

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 20 de October de 2011 20:41:49 Rui Maciel wrote:
> > That makes no sense. Yes, it is very hard to maintain it, but there's no
> > reason why moc would make it more difficult.
> 
> Don't you agree that the added work needed to develop and maintain a
> specialized macro preprocessor in order to use a library ends up taking more
> work than simply developing the application framework alone?

No.

You're making the woefully wrong assumption that the library code would be the 
same if moc didn't exist. That's a blatant error. Please add the need to write 
and maintain the glue code that moc provides, or equivalent technology.

You're also assuming that maintaining moc is hard. That's also wrong.

> >> So, I wouldn't bet Qt's future on the idea that KDE will be around for
> >> some time.  KDE may actually be developed for ages, but nothing forces
> >> KDE to stick with Qt.
> > 
> > Yes, it does.
> 
> It does what?  Your reply doesn't address any of the sentences you quoted.

Yes, it does "force KDE to stick with Qt".

KDE stopping its use of Qt would mean rm -rf *

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
      PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
      E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-interest-old/attachments/20111020/40da04a4/attachment.bin