retard wrote: > Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:44:34 +0000, dsimcha wrote: > >> == Quote from retard (r...@tard.com.invalid)'s article >>> Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:53:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> > Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: >>> >> Right now we are working on a next QtD version. We dropped support >>> >> for D1, it is D2 only. I believe Qt suits all your requirements very >>> >> well. It's performant - we try to emulate as many C++ types using D >>> >> structs as possible, for drawing purposes. So types like QPoint - >>> >> are D structs and for drawing lines you can pass D array directly. >>> >> No perfromance hit. But of course we cannot avoid all of them, it is >>> >> still a binding. Regarding the license, Qt itself is LGPLed, QtD is >>> >> boost. you don't have to put any attribution. About stability of >>> >> APIs - Qt4 is stable within the major version. At the moment we are >>> >> working on signals/slots implementation. It is mostly complete, but >>> >> syntax may change. It will hopefully change once and stay forever. >>> >> >>> >> I would say that QtD is in the state close to that of D2, almost >>> >> there, but not quite ready yet. But we intend to release the next >>> >> version, which will be ready to use earlier than D2 anyway, I would >>> >> say within a month. >>> > >>> > I salute the decision of going with D2, as well as that of using the >>> > Boost license. If there is anything in the language that prevents you >>> > from getting things done, please let us know. The availability of QtD >>> > concurrently with that of D2 will hopefully push both forward. >>> I don't get why Boost license should be used. It's just confusing to >>> have yet another free for all license as it basically promises the same >>> things as the 2-clause BSD or MIT license. The only difference I see is >>> that the author of a Boost licensed software publicly admits that he is >>> a Boost fanboy and thinks the license somehow got better after his >>> personal deities rewrote it from scratch with NIH mentality. >> >> Because the Boost license doesn't require attribution for works only >> distributed in binary form. > > Isn't that kind of insulting towards the original author -- "Your work > wasn't worth a crap. I'll take full credit. You get nothing, community > gets nothing." Encouraging this kind of licenses seems really weird. Ah > yes, zlib was also mentioned - so does one get any advantages when > converting an existing D project from zlib/libpng license to boost > license?
Some corporations won't use licenses which require attribution (and even will rather pay for code instead), so they will automatically drop D as a language if such a license is adopted. If you want to know more about the boost license, this page has the background on it including the rationale and history: http://www.boost.org/users/license.html