On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:20:24AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Every year in the Qt Developer Days plenary sessions, the audience asked for > more bugfixing, fewer new features, and definitely no regressions. We > listened. > So instead of breaking QtWidgets by refactoring it, we kept it as-is, we're > fixing bugs, and we're introducing a new solution, step by step, so we can > achieve the "code once" goal again. > > Tell me that was wrong.
Implementing the features that have been asked for while keeping the stability of the existing stack might indeed have required a second stack, which might very likely have had a different API. However, the scale of additional differences on the frontend side of the presented solution is way beyond what is necessary and not what has been asked for. People did not ask for replacing a well-known standardized language with established development and deployment processes by some ad-hoc domain specific language without similar provisions. People did not ask to shift their compile-time effort onto their user's startup and run times. People did not ask to depend on technologies that are easily, and on some platforms commonly, blocked by downstream distribution channels. Etc. Listening to the audience was not wrong. The presented solution partially is, as it bundles compulsory dependencies which are technically not needed, and often enough counterproductive. Andre' _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
