On 07/04/2012 10:17 AM, d3fault wrote: > 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++. >
This is a bit of a red herring. You can do everything in the .ui you can do in C++ exactly because there is not that much you can do with it. You can have a fully static QML (without any JS) for the same purpose, but that would make no sense - that would be just syntax switching from XML to JSON without any functional benefit. Interoperability is of course very important, but it's really not about "we will intentionally make it suck", but rather that some things are easier to expose to the C++ side than others. Long before declarative we had QtScript and QtWebkit which were - in those days - even less interoperable, but perhaps they were not as cool, so the sour grapes syndrome didn't kick in :) Yes, one might have personal preferences regarding the language choice and how it interfaces with the rest of Qt, but that doesn't invalidate the concept. You're not forced to use QML, it's just that for some tasks it's the easiest (and thus recommended) way to go. Attila _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
