5 ms·
It can be frustrating indeed that Qt is not quite C++, make no use of modern C++ library, and requires a preprocessor. Still, I find it debatable whether moder
by rixed 5y ago
It can be frustrating indeed that Qt is not quite C++, make no use of modern C++ library, and requires a preprocessor.
Still, I find it debatable whether modern C++ is so much better than Qt. Qt design principles might lead to less performance but I, for one, find the design consistent and solid.
The main advantage of Qt over modern C++ though is its stability. If you had written a Qt app 20 years ago it would still compile and work as intended, whereas C++ become a different language every 5 years.
I share your sentiment about QML though, and hope they will quickly reinvest into Qwidgets.
- jcelerier 5y agoNote that you don't strictly need moc when coding Qt app. I use verdigris which is an equivalent of moc but entirely implemented as macros. The drawback is that since C++ does not yet have proper reflection, the macros are a bit uglier...
- inetknght 5y ago> The main advantage of Qt over modern C++ though is its stability. Yes > main advantage of Qt over modern C++ though is its stability. If you had written a Qt app 20 years ago it would still compile and work as intended, whereas C++ become a different language every 5 years. Your arguments contradict eachother. C++ only becomes another language every 5 years if you want to use the new features. The new features make things simpler and safer. I say I do want to use the new features; I want the safety improvements and the simplicity offered. Qt makes it practically impossible to do.