3 ms·

I believe you're incorrect, C++ is a good language for building UIs, as proven by the plethora of UI libraries and frameworks built in C++ for pretty much all p

by blub 7y ago

I believe you're incorrect, C++ is a good language for building UIs, as proven by the plethora of UI libraries and frameworks built in C++ for pretty much all platforms. This is visible when comparing PyQt and C++: yes, PyQt is easier to get into, has nicer syntax, but C++ offers more power. Even hot-loading UIs, a typical scripting language advantage is supported. Declarative UI languages do have some advantages compared to regular programming languages, but that's unrelated to the claim you made. Bindings are not C++'s problem, they're the problem of the other languages which try to use UI frameworks written in C++, like Rust, which still doesn't have any decent UI library.

protomyth 7y ago
I keep coming back to the differences between OPENSTEP and Taligent and believe C++ isn't the best choice.
- ptx 7y ago
  What were some of the differences? (Other than Taligent dying and OPENSTEP surviving via Mac OS X, which is all I know about the topic.)
  - infinite8s 7y ago
    There's a reason Qt had to invent the MOC.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    https://books.google.com/books?id=e35JCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT139&lpg=PT139&dq=taligent+Aaron+Hillegass,&source=bl&ots=VGTriuTmE4&sig=ACfU3U0BS9ypil2LRv-OULhT63NBUpAh5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjshOuS9fPjAhUYWs0KHUP2CnAQ6AEwA3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=taligent%20Aaron%20Hillegass%2C&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=e35JCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT139&lpg=... Gives the basics of the difference
jlarocco 7y ago
> This is visible when comparing PyQt and C++: yes, PyQt is easier to get into, has nicer syntax, but C++ offers more power. That may be true for Python, but the Common Lisp bindings for Qt4 were equally as "powerful" as the C++ bindings. It had higher level abstractions that generally made it easier to read and write, as well. > Bindings are not C++'s problem Actually, bindings are a problem with C++. Some features (like templates) and implementation details (like name mangling) make it very difficult to create bindings to C++.
pjmlp 7y ago
They have the graphics layer written in C++, but get used from managed languages. QML, Swift, Android, UWP, WPF, Forms, Blueprints, Unity, React Native.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  I've worked on two products with touchscreen UIs now and I can safely say this is exactly how I want to do things. Have a tight core engine but with a flexible declarative language that I can get imperative with. And make it easy for me to declare connections between the model and the view without specifying data types. And give me a way to work with a statically typed language when that's beneficial. QML is way faster to develop in than C++. And it hides a lot of signal/slot boilerplate that doesn't matter. And I can still write C++ classes that interface with QML when I want.
flukus 7y ago
> I believe you're incorrect, C++ is a good language for building UIs I agree, not necessarily with c++ but it's much better to build UI's with code than declarative xml crap. It will be a shame if Qt sticks to a pure c++ interface though, I'd hope the build something more usable from more languages so it's an option for C, Zig, Rust, etc.

by blub 7y ago

protomyth 7y ago

I keep coming back to the differences between OPENSTEP and Taligent and believe C++ isn't the best choice.

ptx 7y ago
What were some of the differences? (Other than Taligent dying and OPENSTEP surviving via Mac OS X, which is all I know about the topic.)
- infinite8s 7y ago
  There's a reason Qt had to invent the MOC.
- protomyth 7y ago
  https://books.google.com/books?id=e35JCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT139&lpg=PT139&dq=taligent+Aaron+Hillegass,&source=bl&ots=VGTriuTmE4&sig=ACfU3U0BS9ypil2LRv-OULhT63NBUpAh5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjshOuS9fPjAhUYWs0KHUP2CnAQ6AEwA3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=taligent%20Aaron%20Hillegass%2C&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=e35JCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT139&lpg=... Gives the basics of the difference

jlarocco 7y ago

> This is visible when comparing PyQt and C++: yes, PyQt is easier to get into, has nicer syntax, but C++ offers more power. That may be true for Python, but the Common Lisp bindings for Qt4 were equally as "powerful" as the C++ bindings. It had higher level abstractions that generally made it easier to read and write, as well. > Bindings are not C++'s problem Actually, bindings are a problem with C++. Some features (like templates) and implementation details (like name mangling) make it very difficult to create bindings to C++.

pjmlp 7y ago

They have the graphics layer written in C++, but get used from managed languages. QML, Swift, Android, UWP, WPF, Forms, Blueprints, Unity, React Native.

jschwartzi 7y ago
I've worked on two products with touchscreen UIs now and I can safely say this is exactly how I want to do things. Have a tight core engine but with a flexible declarative language that I can get imperative with. And make it easy for me to declare connections between the model and the view without specifying data types. And give me a way to work with a statically typed language when that's beneficial. QML is way faster to develop in than C++. And it hides a lot of signal/slot boilerplate that doesn't matter. And I can still write C++ classes that interface with QML when I want.

flukus 7y ago

> I believe you're incorrect, C++ is a good language for building UIs I agree, not necessarily with c++ but it's much better to build UI's with code than declarative xml crap. It will be a shame if Qt sticks to a pure c++ interface though, I'd hope the build something more usable from more languages so it's an option for C, Zig, Rust, etc.