3 ms·

The last time I used Qt was a long, long, time ago. I liked it, mainly because it avoided the STL and was cleaner. I'm not a fan of C++ (I consider it a baroque

by CrLf 11y ago

The last time I used Qt was a long, long, time ago. I liked it, mainly because it avoided the STL and was cleaner. I'm not a fan of C++ (I consider it a baroque and overly complex language), but I enjoyed using Qt. So, this line seems like a drawback to me, instead of an advantage: "CopperSpice is a C++ library derived from the existing Qt 4.8 framework. Our goal was to change the core design of the libraries, leveraging template functionality and C++11 capabilities."

cmrdporcupine 11y ago
Well you should take another look at C++. The changes in the language in the last 10 years have really made it more pleasant to work with, in particular around the STL (which imho is excellently designed, but was hampered by the the language itself.) There was always a kernel of a beautiful language inside C++ trying to get out (and it wasn't C). I think the recent moves within the language have started to expose it. FWIW I have approached Qt many times and always been repulsed by its non-standard use of C++. It felt very much like the project had to be built around Qt -- with their nonstandard preprocessor, lack of embrace of the STL, etc -- rather than Qt fitting itself into existing C++ projects. I'm very picky about the style and structure of my code and I always felt like Qt imposed a huge proprietary overhead on that front. So I've avoided it. If Qt can finally drop moc, and use C++11 features, I might consider it.
- CrLf 11y ago
  My perception of Qt may be based on outdated information, but not my perception of C++. It has too many features, a too high probability of two C++ programmers having chosen a different subset of the language to work with and thus barely understand each other's code. What I liked about Qt was exactly how it used nothing from C++ but the core language, adding a Java-like API on top. Non-standard was a good thing.

by CrLf 11y ago

cmrdporcupine 11y ago

Well you should take another look at C++. The changes in the language in the last 10 years have really made it more pleasant to work with, in particular around the STL (which imho is excellently designed, but was hampered by the the language itself.) There was always a kernel of a beautiful language inside C++ trying to get out (and it wasn't C). I think the recent moves within the language have started to expose it. FWIW I have approached Qt many times and always been repulsed by its non-standard use of C++. It felt very much like the project had to be built around Qt -- with their nonstandard preprocessor, lack of embrace of the STL, etc -- rather than Qt fitting itself into existing C++ projects. I'm very picky about the style and structure of my code and I always felt like Qt imposed a huge proprietary overhead on that front. So I've avoided it. If Qt can finally drop moc, and use C++11 features, I might consider it.

CrLf 11y ago
My perception of Qt may be based on outdated information, but not my perception of C++. It has too many features, a too high probability of two C++ programmers having chosen a different subset of the language to work with and thus barely understand each other's code. What I liked about Qt was exactly how it used nothing from C++ but the core language, adding a Java-like API on top. Non-standard was a good thing.