CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
copperspice.com
CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
1–10 of 104 posts
Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
#2great work! but i wander ..
What is the purpose of this ?
is the license is still LGPL ? if yes so ...?
Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
#3Why?
And why 4.8? The 5.x branch is a far better version of Qt.
This looks ridiculous. Qt is a massive framework - the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of people - and this seems to be the work of a random dev with zero backing and a 2004-style website with zero content (everything, even the 14-forum completely empty phpbb forum).
Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
#4Hmm. On a (quick) glance, I can't find:
- a license
- a repository -- I very much like to browse the code, issues, PRs ...
- some tutorials -- I often judge projects by whether or not their tutorials work OOTB
Unfortunately, that's how I evaluate tools. It's a big red flag for me if one of these things is missing in new projects -- especially when it's a fork (is it?) of something else.
Maybe the author(s) can add these?
Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
#5great work! but i wander .. What is the purpose of this ? is the license is still LGPL ? if yes so ...?
You can't change GPL licenses by forking the original sources. You will need to have a rewrite.
Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
#6Why? And why 4.8? The 5.x branch is a far better version of Qt. This looks ridiculous. Qt is a massive framework - the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of people - and this seems to be the work of a random dev with zero backing and a 2004-style website with zero content (everything, even the 14-forum completely empty phpbb forum).
I fail to understand either, but they say:
> CopperSpice has been modified to remove moc, the Qt meta object compiler. Moc was removed to simplify the build process, allow CopperSpice to be a standalone library, increase run time performance, and allow developers to utilize C++11 features.
So they replaced the moc functionality with some c++11 magic ?
Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
#7Why? And why 4.8? The 5.x branch is a far better version of Qt. This looks ridiculous. Qt is a massive framework - the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of people - and this seems to be the work of a random dev with zero backing and a 2004-style website with zero content (everything, even the 14-forum completely empty phpbb forum).
I fail to understand either, but they say: > CopperSpice has been modified to remove moc, the Qt meta object compiler. Moc was removed to simplify the build process, allow CopperSpice to be a standalone library, increase run time performance, and allow developers to utilize C++11 features. So they replaced the moc functionality with some c++11 magic ?
> So they replaced the moc functionality with some c++11 magic ?
You mean they replaced moc magic with C++11?
Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
#8Why? And why 4.8? The 5.x branch is a far better version of Qt. This looks ridiculous. Qt is a massive framework - the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of people - and this seems to be the work of a random dev with zero backing and a 2004-style website with zero content (everything, even the 14-forum completely empty phpbb forum).
There are some downsides to Qt5.
* It's huge - something like 30 MB for "hello world" on Windows.
* Deployment is a nightmare (loads of plugin DLLs, there's some crazy path stuff going on, if you use QML you have to include a load of system qml files). There is a windeployqt tool which helps but it still isn't as easy as with Qt4.
* QML/QtQuick are very nice for some things, but in a lot of ways they kind of suck. E.g. passing data between C++ and Javascript is always a pain. Also most of the QML tools (compiler, usable GUI editor, profiler, etc.) are only in the enterprise version of Qt.
Having said that, I don't know why they didn't just base it on Qt5, remove all the QML stuff and make unicode optional (unicode support costs about 20MB). Qt5 already uses C++11 syntax for signals and slots (though you still need moc).
I don't know why you dislike their website.
Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
#9Why? And why 4.8? The 5.x branch is a far better version of Qt. This looks ridiculous. Qt is a massive framework - the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of people - and this seems to be the work of a random dev with zero backing and a 2004-style website with zero content (everything, even the 14-forum completely empty phpbb forum).
The lack of a public repo of some kind and obvious licensing makes this a no-start for me.
Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt
#10Qt's Contributor Summit just ended, and one of the topics was C++11 support [0]. The key takeaway is Qt 5.6 will start the move away from C++98 towards C++11 support, though not fully C++11 mainly due to the MSVC compiler's limitations. The joy of being cross-platform.
That being said, I don't immediately see the value of using CS over Qt. Binary size alone is not generally worth jumping ship from an established community. I'm also not sure why you would replace moc with template magic - moc will generally not fail (or will tell you if, say, you forgot to inherit from QObject), whereas template errors are midæval latin on a good day. The source files generated by moc have a lower bar to read through its generated code (making the Qt framework more accessible and seem less like magic), whereas templates require a very good understanding of metaprogramming (which is a less common skill).
Also the 4.8 pick was an odd choice. Many significant changes that happened to 5.0 were made from a maintenance standpoint. Or "lowering technical debt" if you are playing buzzword bingo. Of all the issues, this is the biggest one in my opinion.