On 2016-07-02 02:42, Marc Mutz wrote: > The STL has a great API. push_back() / back() vs. append() / last(), e.g. It > just happens to be largely consistent with itself instead of with Qt. But > camelCase is not intrinsically "better" than underscored_names, and I also > fail to see why first() should be intrinsically superior to front().
TBH, this is the fault of the English language :-). The words that Qt uses for its API are more intuitive to English speakers, if less consistent. The words STL uses are more logical¹ and consistent, but less intuitive. I've never actually stopped to think about STL being logical¹; every time I use it, it drives me nuts because the API is not "natural". (¹ In the sense of "strictly conforming to formal logic".) Consider... if I ask you what relation the letter 'A' has to the alphabet, is it the letter *at the front*, or is it the *first* letter? I bet you, and most (native, certainly) English speakers said it's the *first* letter. STL's word choices are... a bit like writing code in King James' English. I do however feel that Qt's consistent use of verbs for actions and non-verbs for properties (i.e. empty vs. isEmpty/is_empty) is far superior. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
