Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

copperspice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#11

Post by cjslep »

zerr wrote: post #7
fla wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Advanced template metaprogramming is far less common of a skill than opening a generated source file and reading source code.

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#12

Post by zerr »

cjslep wrote: post #11
zerr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they replaced the moc functionality with some c++11 magic ? You mean they replaced moc magic with C++11?

Advanced template metaprogramming is far less common of a skill than opening a generated source file and reading source code.

Well, one of the aim of C++11 (and 14) is to make template metaprogramming much easier.

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#13

Post by frozenport »

cjslep wrote: post #10

Qt'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 comm…

One thing broken with moc is parralel build in MSVC. I think we all agree that moc is a dirty hack and needs to go.

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#14

Post by scrollaway »

IshKebab wrote: post #8
scrollaway wrote: post #3

Why? 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.…

QML/QtQuick etc are modules in Qt 5, you don't have to depend on them at all and they're not linked in. QtCore is tiny.

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#15

Post by pgeorgi »

fla wrote: post #6
scrollaway wrote: post #3

Why? 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 ?

Given that signals and slots were already implemented with templates in 2002 or before (see http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/libsigc++/1.0/), there's probably no need for c++11 magic.

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#16

Post by emddudley »

scrollaway wrote: post #3

Why? 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 About page [1] lists two people: Barbara Geller and Ansel Sermersheim.

[1] http://www.copperspice.com/about.html

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#17

Post by janoc »

Uhm, "modern" and "built using GNU Autotools" in a single sentence just doesn't compute.

Cross-platform portability obviously isn't their goal.

Oh and thank you for removing moc and replacing that with some template black magic. Yeah, you can do that, but your developers are going swear up a storm at you once they see the wonderful compilation errors that e.g. MSVC produces with templates ... But I guess they don't target professional Windows devs (cf the MinGW compilation ...).

This looks very much like a classic not-invented-here syndrome project - "let's make something better by throwing out everything that made it useful".

I do wonder what is the raison d'être of this project.

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#18

Post by guruz »

fla wrote: post #6
scrollaway wrote: post #3

Why? 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 ?

Indirectly related blog post: "Can Qt's moc be replaced by C++ reflection?"

http://woboq.com/blog/reflection-in-cpp-and-qt-moc.html

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#19

Post by easytiger »

janoc wrote: post #17

Uhm, "modern" and "built using GNU Autotools" in a single sentence just doesn't compute. Cross-platform portability obviously isn't their goal. Oh and thank you for removing moc and replacing that with some template black magic. Yeah, you can do that, but your developers are going swear up a storm at you once they see the wonderful compilation errors that e.g. MSVC produces with templates ... But I guess they don't t…

> Uhm, "modern" and "built using GNU Autotools"

Autotools represents a pragmatic solution to a non trivial problem. What's your solution? Hipster like complaining? Perhaps the c/c++ eco system is too easy and straightforward for the hipster developer class?

Re: CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt

#20

Post by jryan49 »

seletz wrote: post #4

Hmm. 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 th…

Seems to be all here: http://www.copperspice.com/docs/cs_overview/index.html
Post reply on HN