[Qt-interest] The argument for Qt

[Joseph Crowell]

On 10/20/2011 3:02 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> 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 *
Every single part of KDE does (and always has since KDE was created) 
trace back to Qt.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-interest mailing list
> Qt-interest at qt.nokia.com
> http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-interest-old/attachments/20111020/976ede24/attachment.html