5 ms·

Qt posts to HN never include a single technical comment. It is unfortunate, but I suppose that's mostly due to the particular subset of programmers that visits

by brnt 6y ago

Qt posts to HN never include a single technical comment. It is unfortunate, but I suppose that's mostly due to the particular subset of programmers that visits HN.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Can you provide an example of a comment sufficiently technical to be worthy?
- brnt 6y ago
  I'm saying there isn't one (well, a hundred messages in and there are a handful at last :) ). Nobody is discussing what's new for instance. I'd be interested in the status of moc (isn't mentioned on the page).
  - stagger87 6y ago
    The MOC is still present in Qt 6.0, if that is what you are asking.
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      Even with CMake?
      - alvarelle 6y ago
        Yes. That's orthogonal. And people have been using CMake with Qt (and moc) for almost as long as cmake exists
      - omegote 6y ago
        Question should be "even with C++17?". Cmake has had moc and uic support for years now. The question is why they don't leverage the c++17 features to get rid of moc, ffs.
        marcthe12 6y ago
        There is some features used by moc expected in c++23 like reflection. I think that in qt 7 they will drop moc an some stl replcements in qtcore
      - rualca 6y ago
        > Even with CMake? Why would Cmake eliminate the need for Qt's moc? Cmake is a build system/makefile generator. You don't generate c++ from form files or Qt-annotated C++ files out of magic.
boudewijnrempt 6y ago
Weird, last time I noticed Qt being discussed on HN, I got a really useful and technical comment which is still something I'm basing my future plans on.
- ldite 6y ago
  You can't say that and then not link the comment!
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  Weird, can you link it?
  - _mlvljr 6y ago
    I think, it's https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23880847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23880847, guys :)
pjmlp 6y ago
It is the culture of free beer. On my circle most developers don't even care that sites like HN and Reddit exist. They do whatever is needed, mostly with commercial software, and then leave to home, where their hobbies are completely unrelated to coding. In what concerns Qt 6, I care about the multiple 3D backend, C++17 and the upcoming QML to C++ compiler.
- higerordermap 6y ago
  Mind that nice things also come from the crowd which you call hipster, whereas your 9-5 crowd is writing some dotnet accounting app. I couldn't care less about what enterprise java developers do, not because I disrespect them, but it's not discussed because it's not interesting. It seems like you somehow think paid shitty software was / is better than free shitty software. Mind that free shitty software has its upsides too. And counterpoint: People don't hate intellij like they hate oracle or Qt. People hate takeover by suits.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I bet the majority those non hater people using InteliJ don't pay for it, and the enterprise customers are the majority of their paying customers, and most likely they also get some money from godfather Google thanks to Android Studio and Kotlin. Speaking of which, if eventually Google ends up buying them, lets see how much love is left.
    - higerordermap 6y ago
      Yep, that doesn't counter my main point though. We all know there's a dark matter of enterprise programmers, out of which a good portion is perfectly capable, but just doing it as work 9-5. But that's not what we expect to see on HN/Reddit/open source projects. You seem to not like that dev tools are not a sustainable business today. That was kind of inevitable. Using paid dev tools alienates contributors in open source development, and students/3rd world can't afford them, and lot of paid tools are specialized to some domains (think SAP). Doesn't help that proprietary vendors try to lock down stuff and lot of rent seeking behavior (Oracle, qt company).. Atlassian made some steps in lowering this barrier of entry, and built a pretty good business IMO, though not much developer specific. If there's anything to learn, unless there's an app store like low barrier to entry platform for dev tools with student discounts, free trials etc.. people may learn paying for high quality developer tools.
finnthehuman 6y ago
I use Qt professionally. What exactly do you want me to say here? Salivate over bullet points on a release announcement when we treat every update as maintenance to a core featureset that's been sufficient since Qt 4.8? Jump into a tangent about the meta object compiler on a release announcement? Talk about the translation system apropos of nothing? The only things that matter here to me now are if the license details change, if they made breaking design changes or deprecated features.
- brnt 6y ago
  > Salivate over bullet points on a release announcement For instance. > when we treat every update as maintenance to a core featureset that's been sufficient since Qt 4.8? Or discuss why this is true for 'we'. > Talk about the translation system apropos of nothing? How is that more nothing than license details?

by brnt 6y ago

Qt posts to HN never include a single technical comment. It is unfortunate, but I suppose that's mostly due to the particular subset of programmers that visits HN.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

Can you provide an example of a comment sufficiently technical to be worthy?

brnt 6y ago
I'm saying there isn't one (well, a hundred messages in and there are a handful at last :) ). Nobody is discussing what's new for instance. I'd be interested in the status of moc (isn't mentioned on the page).
- stagger87 6y ago
  The MOC is still present in Qt 6.0, if that is what you are asking.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Even with CMake?
    - alvarelle 6y ago
      Yes. That's orthogonal. And people have been using CMake with Qt (and moc) for almost as long as cmake exists
    - omegote 6y ago
      Question should be "even with C++17?". Cmake has had moc and uic support for years now. The question is why they don't leverage the c++17 features to get rid of moc, ffs.
      - marcthe12 6y ago
        There is some features used by moc expected in c++23 like reflection. I think that in qt 7 they will drop moc an some stl replcements in qtcore
    - rualca 6y ago
      > Even with CMake? Why would Cmake eliminate the need for Qt's moc? Cmake is a build system/makefile generator. You don't generate c++ from form files or Qt-annotated C++ files out of magic.

boudewijnrempt 6y ago

Weird, last time I noticed Qt being discussed on HN, I got a really useful and technical comment which is still something I'm basing my future plans on.

ldite 6y ago
You can't say that and then not link the comment!
ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
Weird, can you link it?
- _mlvljr 6y ago
  I think, it's https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23880847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23880847, guys :)

pjmlp 6y ago

It is the culture of free beer. On my circle most developers don't even care that sites like HN and Reddit exist. They do whatever is needed, mostly with commercial software, and then leave to home, where their hobbies are completely unrelated to coding. In what concerns Qt 6, I care about the multiple 3D backend, C++17 and the upcoming QML to C++ compiler.

higerordermap 6y ago
Mind that nice things also come from the crowd which you call hipster, whereas your 9-5 crowd is writing some dotnet accounting app. I couldn't care less about what enterprise java developers do, not because I disrespect them, but it's not discussed because it's not interesting. It seems like you somehow think paid shitty software was / is better than free shitty software. Mind that free shitty software has its upsides too. And counterpoint: People don't hate intellij like they hate oracle or Qt. People hate takeover by suits.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I bet the majority those non hater people using InteliJ don't pay for it, and the enterprise customers are the majority of their paying customers, and most likely they also get some money from godfather Google thanks to Android Studio and Kotlin. Speaking of which, if eventually Google ends up buying them, lets see how much love is left.
  - higerordermap 6y ago
    Yep, that doesn't counter my main point though. We all know there's a dark matter of enterprise programmers, out of which a good portion is perfectly capable, but just doing it as work 9-5. But that's not what we expect to see on HN/Reddit/open source projects. You seem to not like that dev tools are not a sustainable business today. That was kind of inevitable. Using paid dev tools alienates contributors in open source development, and students/3rd world can't afford them, and lot of paid tools are specialized to some domains (think SAP). Doesn't help that proprietary vendors try to lock down stuff and lot of rent seeking behavior (Oracle, qt company).. Atlassian made some steps in lowering this barrier of entry, and built a pretty good business IMO, though not much developer specific. If there's anything to learn, unless there's an app store like low barrier to entry platform for dev tools with student discounts, free trials etc.. people may learn paying for high quality developer tools.

finnthehuman 6y ago

I use Qt professionally. What exactly do you want me to say here? Salivate over bullet points on a release announcement when we treat every update as maintenance to a core featureset that's been sufficient since Qt 4.8? Jump into a tangent about the meta object compiler on a release announcement? Talk about the translation system apropos of nothing? The only things that matter here to me now are if the license details change, if they made breaking design changes or deprecated features.

brnt 6y ago
> Salivate over bullet points on a release announcement For instance. > when we treat every update as maintenance to a core featureset that's been sufficient since Qt 4.8? Or discuss why this is true for 'we'. > Talk about the translation system apropos of nothing? How is that more nothing than license details?