4 ms·

> it's possible to do Qt without moc even in C++ with https://github.com/woboq/verdigris/ https://github.com/woboq/verdigris/, why wouldn't it be possible from

> it's possible to do Qt without moc even in C++ with https://github.com/woboq/verdigris/ https://github.com/woboq/verdigris/, why wouldn't it be possible from D ? You're talking about an entirely different thing. While OP was referring to the current state of D's ecosystem and the impact that missing key frameworks have on hindering adoption, you're arguing about the theoretical possibility of writing a framework with a language, which really does not address OP's point.

detaro 4y ago
No, you are misunderstanding their point. If the problem of using Qt from D is that you need the MOC, then the fact that you can work around the need for MOC and use Qt without it seems quite relevant?
- chc 4y ago
  The initial complaint was that it did not have "good support." I think it is fair to say that having to spend a significant amount of effort to work around a lack of support is not "good support."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - LorenDB 4y ago
    Indeed, that is what I meant. I would like to see Qt allow some sort of language-abstracted moc so I can just install Qt and a set of Qt bindings and then use them. Just because I can work around the moc doesn't mean that I can easily and productively use Qt from D.
    - jcelerier 4y ago
      But .. how would that work ? What does "language-abstracted" means for something which is specifically about a language ? E.g. moc in c++ looks for your classes with a Q_OBJECT macro to generate the matching reflection & metaobject data in a .cpp: how does that work in a language that doesn't have preprocessor macros, or maybe even classes, e.g. Scheme or some BASIC dialect ? In addition, moc is only necessary for languages that do not have proper reflection & code generation facilities - if they do, it's entirely unnecessary as the metaobject code can just be generated in-language as part of the bindings you're mentioning. E.g. consider the python Qt bindings: they don't need a moc. Same for D.

detaro 4y ago

No, you are misunderstanding their point. If the problem of using Qt from D is that you need the MOC, then the fact that you can work around the need for MOC and use Qt without it seems quite relevant?

chc 4y ago
The initial complaint was that it did not have "good support." I think it is fair to say that having to spend a significant amount of effort to work around a lack of support is not "good support."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- LorenDB 4y ago
  Indeed, that is what I meant. I would like to see Qt allow some sort of language-abstracted moc so I can just install Qt and a set of Qt bindings and then use them. Just because I can work around the moc doesn't mean that I can easily and productively use Qt from D.
  - jcelerier 4y ago
    But .. how would that work ? What does "language-abstracted" means for something which is specifically about a language ? E.g. moc in c++ looks for your classes with a Q_OBJECT macro to generate the matching reflection & metaobject data in a .cpp: how does that work in a language that doesn't have preprocessor macros, or maybe even classes, e.g. Scheme or some BASIC dialect ? In addition, moc is only necessary for languages that do not have proper reflection & code generation facilities - if they do, it's entirely unnecessary as the metaobject code can just be generated in-language as part of the bindings you're mentioning. E.g. consider the python Qt bindings: they don't need a moc. Same for D.