On 3/22/21 4:07 AM, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
On 20 Mar 2021, at 14:22, Roland Hughes <rol...@logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
I grepped the archive this morning. Hopefully Andre's email still works. I had
hoped he was still watching on here and would pipe up. Maybe he and his company
abandoned Qt as well after the June 2020 exchange?
Here is a scrape of one of the messages in the thread from the archive.
Subject: [Interest] Set manipulation in Qt 6
In-Reply-To: <2dbe5c20-648d-02bd-745d-4415449f1...@kdab.com>
References: <CAK-8PPRmYe1KKjDf=zd0Rv=X-dj=6tk4mayz3xrente1skj...@mail.gmail.com>
<2dbe5c20-648d-02bd-745d-4415449f1...@kdab.com>
Message-ID: <20200621172617.GB11000@klara>
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:34:11PM +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote:
With my hat of the guy going around and deprecating toSet() and friends: the
rationale for these deprecations is the terrible code that those methods
encourage, and the
While I sympathize to some degree with the performance motivation behind this
kind of removal of convenience functionality this has to be put into perspective
of the price you charge:
We had to spent a significant amount of our time during the last year to
keep up with the deprecations within the last releases in the 5.x series.
This includes re-inventing parts of the abandoned qalgorithm as part of
our code base.
The toSet/toList changes alone involved touching 200+ locations in the code
base and I am not aware of even a single noticable performance improvement
as a result.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation with generous assumptions on user count and
usage frequency makes me believe that the accumulated win on saved computer
time does not even offset the amount of manual work that had to be spent
on these changes.
On top of that goes the more complex and consequently harder to read re-written
code, plus the chance of introduction of actual regressions in the code.
The latter is btw not just theoretical, I noticed only last Friday the hard
way that blindly replacing QLinkedList by std::list can transform previously
correct and working code into a crash. Having to thoroughly check each and
every such replacement only to get in the best case the same functionality
as before is an awful value proposition.
To summarize: If you despise wasting cycles for convenience that's fine.
Assuming that everyone else shares this preference is already odd. Making
other people pay for this is simply wrong.
(Which brings me to my second crusade, try stop encouraging the usage of Qt
containers, as their API is full of holes and doesn't play nice with
algorithms or ranges. But it's enough for this mail.)
If you want to use Qt without Qt that's fine. But please stop making other
people suffer from your choices.
Andre'
Andre being one of the Qt Creator developers is of course in a very special
place. Not only because the Qt Creator team has decided that they want a single
code base that builds against both Qt 5 and Qt 6. Doing so as Qt 6 was being
developed of course resulted in more churn - but also in good feedback. Either
way, it is perhaps not the most representative porting experience.
Roland, if you have specific 1st hand porting experience to share and
constructive contributions to make about which APIs we should bring back
because, then please do so.
Cheers,
Volker
Everybody else simply quit Qt when what they needed was nuked without
warning.
Right now the only big name I know of continuing forward with Qt is John
Deere, but I doubt they stick with it much longer. Will have to chat
with my hunting buddy from high school again some time soon. He was over
that stuff last time we chatted.
Btw, given the current state of QtCreator, I would point to it as a
highly representative port.
--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
