4 ms·
Fair enough, but I think that the onus of proof is on the weird-language-user here. That is, a discussion of how cross-platform GUI toolkits are a 'trainwreck'
by glangdale 8y ago
Fair enough, but I think that the onus of proof is on the weird-language-user here. That is, a discussion of how cross-platform GUI toolkits are a 'trainwreck' takes on a different vibe if you're insisting on using Nim or Left-Handed Pure Phenomenological Haskell or the like.
- bunderbunder 8y agoI think you're maybe over-interpreting the article. There is no (grammatical) article in its title. You seem to be assuming the article is implicitly "the", which would imply that it's intended for a more-or-less universal audience. It could just as easily be "a", which would then mean that it's more of a personal rant about the author's specific situation. I'd argue that the leading two sentences in the italicized portion of the article imply that it's the latter. For the sake of throwing my own $0.02 in, I also have a historical habit of blithely ignoring wxWidgets and QT for my hobby projects. Their being written in C++ bit is a bit of a deal-breaker for me. The quagmire of interacting with C++ code from a language that isn't itself C++ in a cross-platform way results in me shaving my fill of yaks during working hours; I have little taste for doing even more of it during time that's supposed to be reserved for fun.
- glangdale 8y agoYes, I guess so. I suppose I'm startled that someone would write such an elaborate article about such a remarkably specific situation without some intent to make a general statement, but whatever floats his boat I guess. You're definitely right that interacting with C++ outside of C++ (unlike the C ABI) is painful even before Qt's weird moc stuff gets going.