[Qt-interest] [OT] Re: The argument for Qt

[Till Oliver Knoll]

Am 20.10.2011 um 22:57 schrieb Rui Maciel <rui.maciel at gmail.com>:

> If we look at what moc provides

We all know what the Qt Meta System provides.

> Inheriting a base class is supported by
> programming languages such as C++

No shit? I just KNEW I was doing something very wrong all these years ;)

> and a preprocessor isn't required to
> implement signals and slots[1],

Following the same kind of logic: A dog has four legs (it's true!) and  
a spoon isn't required to bake bread. q.e.d. by logical confusion and  
rhetorical nonsense (aka "politician-speak").


> which is described as "the main reason for
> introducing" Qt's meta-object system.

Whatever...

>   Yet, I believe
> we can agree that, no matter how easy it might be, being forced to  
> develop
> and maintain a preprocessor requires more work than not having to  
> develop
> and maintain a preprocessor.

And I am convinced that no matter how easy it might be to pile up  
shit, being forced to do so requires more work than not having to pile  
up shit.


I just love this guy, you can't beat his logic ;) I mean, you're  
really serious about what you're saying, no?

Say, are you actually a developer? ;)



> Major rewrites tend to assume the form of major rewrites.

Does anyone know the officially worst movie "Plan 9 From Outer Space"  
by Ed Wood? This could be a quote from the dialogues ;)


> For example, if
> Trolltech stopped developing Qt before releasing Qt4, what would the  
> KDE
> project have decided to do?

For example if I hadn't wasted my time answering this email, what  
would I have done?

Well, I had a good laugh ;)

Cheers, Oliver