On Apr 16, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> Em sexta-feira, 14 de abril de 2017, às 22:38:25 PDT, Randall O'Reilly
> escreveu:
>> One of the major innovations in Go is that it avoids all of those problems.
>> You only ever write things once, in one place (
On Apr 15, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Shawn Rutledge wrote:
>
>
>> On 13 Apr 2017, at 14:02, Randall O'Reilly
>> wrote:
>>
>> With the recent language explosion, there are now languages to fit
>> everyone’s biases and aesthetics.
>
> This explosion
:)
- Randy
> On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:25 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>
>
> 13.04.2017, 13:25, "Konstantin Tokarev" :
>> 13.04.2017, 12:32, "Nikita Krupenko" :
>>> On четверг, 13 апреля 2017 г. 08:24:39 EEST Randall O'Reilly wrote:
&g
In the context of all this recent discussion about modernizing Qt to
accommodate updates to C++, has anyone given any thought to the radical idea of
creating a brand new product using Go? Go (golang) is rapidly gaining in
popularity, and seems to embody everything that is great about Qt (simpli
I migrated to Qt from InterViews:
http://www.ivtools.org/ivtools/doc/refman3.1/index.html which used
floating-point units that could be arbitrarily rescaled, but default to points,
like many other standards (e.g., SVG, Postscript). I always found it strange
that Qt used integer pixel coords.
I’m confused about how it would even be possible to contemplate abandoning the
implicit sharing paradigm given how deeply embedded it is within *all* of Qt,
going well beyond the container classes:
http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/implicit-sharing.html
Seems like Qt has adopted a core design principle he
This debate between the std:: lib and wider C++ community vs. the Qt traditions
seems never-ending :) At the risk of perpetuating the inevitable flame war, my
perspective is well captured in this article:
http://simpleprogrammer.com/2012/12/01/why-c-is-not-back/
C++ is WAY too complex of a la
Harald — I filed a few bug tickets with example code for some of these issues,
as noted below.
- Randy
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Harald Vistnes wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have played with the tech preview of Qt3D 2.0 and I have some questions and
> wishes.
>
> 1. Transparency. It does not se
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned that, because of the private data nature of
most Qt classes, they are a) already allocating the private data object on the
heap all the time and incurring all that overhead and memory allocation
badness, and b) are essentially a pointer to an object already — t
