On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 00:27, Christian Gagneraud <chg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 23:06, Jean-Michaël Celerier > <jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The world is not spinning around Qt, sorry for the bad news. > > > > On that we agree : https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2019/cpp/ > > I mean, I had actual CMake classes with a CMake exam on paper 6 years ago > > at the university -- you get a few hundreds of new devs on the job market > > every year out of that one, who *will* know CMake, and won't know qmake / > > qbs / [...]. > > Are you insulting this mailing list? > How do you think we made it so far without cmake? Honestly? > > The very fact you're discussing qmake and qbs just show that you know > about them, and that you know what they provide cmake cannot provide > (yet). > > > > I prefer a transparent self-bootstrapped Qt over an explicit two stages > > > one. > > I (entirely personnally) really do not, - this is anecdotally one of the > > main objections I've heard about Qt (3k questions just about Qt's configure > > in SO ! https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bqt%5D+configure) : not just > > answering to a standard cmake && make && make install which comes with gui > > discoverability through cmake-gui, embeddability through add_subdirectory > > or C++ package managers such as conan, vcpkg, hunter, etc etc. but instead > > acting like its own microcosm library where you have to learn yet another > > set of commands & invocations if you want to integrate it in your existing > > system. > > Woah, you're ass is so shinny i can't see the light.
Hi Jean-Michaël, I would like to apologise about that one, frustration got me in. That wasn't smart from me, I do respect everyone, even when I disagree with them. I didn't mean to insult you, please forgive me, that was a stupid behaviour. Chris _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
