4 ms·
Qt LTS going to closed source
- ldng 6y agoI sometime wonder why they even still bother with opensource
- thrtythreeforty 6y agoThey are contractually bound to. If they don't release an open source licensed version, the KDE Free Qt foundation is entitled to release the last version under a BSD license.
- thrtythreeforty 6y agoI will add, though, that lately it seems to me Qt has acted as though they wished that agreement did not exist.
- slezyr 6y agoGreat, Qt 6.x isn't ready, so KDE and others can't use it. They have to run a fork if they want to fix some bug in Qt. I really wonder what's going to happen.
- slezyr 6y agoThe Register: Open-source contributors say they'll pull out of Qt as LTS release goes commercial-only https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/05/qt_lts_goes_commercial_only/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/05/qt_lts_goes_commercia...
- ncmncm 6y agoThe Free fork should do away with the "signals" / slots" / etc. macros immediately. They were an embarrassment from the first day, and have only got worse with time. In 2019 "Qt Company" actually, officially had the gall to ask the ISO SC22/WG21 C++ Standard committee to change the name of a Standard Library member function that one of their macros squatted on. (A: "Take a hike.") Apparently there have been capital-letter versions (Q_SIGNALS etc.) for a long time, but they never managed to get the user base ported to them, or even fix their own docs, which still to this day advocate them.
- bionade24 6y agoThe reason why no one uses the already existing Qt fork is because of the removal of signal/slots. Qt users don't want to use callbacks.
- ncmncm 6y agoLiterally nobody needs to remove signal/slots. They just need to replace them with Q_SIGNAL/Q_SLOTS. No framework merits new core language keywords.
- bionade24 6y agoI'm too young to have ever used the signal/slot keywords, only the Macro syntax and the new instance/functioin_reference syntax, but I've seen this in a lot of legacy code. I'm totally ok with this.