@Lorn: It would be nice if you give a more detailed response than just "no" ;) Some technical details would be great to hear also.
@d3fault: Plz stop trolling and concentrate on technical issues, pros and cons, etc. The next time plz stop after your "Therefore, QML is not interoperable with Qt/C++", otherwise you lied and this is not a proposal... And what did you mean by "removing QML from Qt's code base"? Grepping Qt sources for "qml" gives me nothing particular. AFAIK, both quick1 and declarative have their own modules. regards, Konstantin 2012/7/4 d3fault <d3faultdot...@gmail.com>: > On Jul 3, 2012 10:04 PM, <lorn.pot...@nokia.com> wrote: >> >> QML was started long before Nokia bought Trolltech. >> >> To answer your question, my opinion is No, QML should not be removed. >> > > Lorn, so you think it should be allowed that Qt Modules are not > interoperable? > > Also, did QML in the Trolltech days have javascript hacked on and forced-JIT > in the design? There's a 3rd option that I intentionally didn't mention that > is actually a sensible home for QML: .ui file replacement. Currently QML > depends too much on itself to be a .ui file replacement. There is no C++ > equivalent of much of the functionality in QML, whereas everything you can > do in a .ui file, you can do in C++. > > d3fault > > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
