CopperSpice, a Modern C++ Fork of Qt • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by 0xFFC » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

nhaehnle wrote: post #81

dman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be perfectly honest a fork in Qt does not surprise me. Most of the people I know who are using Qt use the QWidgets api which has been neglected since 4.8 . Increasingly Qt development appears to be geared for completely new paradigms (Mobile, Scene graphs, Styling via CSS, QML, QtQuick ...) while leaving the core desktop functionality at a stand still.

None of this is an argument in favor of a fork. Even if what you write were true (and that hasn't been my impression), somebody would still have to do the work of improving QtWidgets even further. They might as well do that work in Qt itself without producing a fork. It's obvious judging from other comments in this thread that Qt has some problems making people unhappy. However, where those problems are genuine, the…

no fence , but do you understand what he/she talking about ? Qt (simply) does not allow any changes to Qtwidget code base's . (If I remember correctly) they even freezed Qtwidget API.

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

#102

Post by 0xFFC » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #92

asermersheim wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just found out about this thread 10 minutes ago, and we have been on reddit for the past 8 hours answering questions. We are stunned by the level of interest and feedback. We have been using git from day 1 in house for our version control and that will be available to the public shortly. We have been focusing on outreach to the local SF Bay area developer community, and we presented CopperSpice at the SF Bay Area…

Ok, I went through your presentation, it does give more background. Let me re-raise my concerns. - You are based on Qt 4.x. Why? The 5.x branch is better in every respect (yes, bugs, but that's fixable). This project is breathing life into a version of the lib which really should be dead. I think this is a net negative for Qt. - Why is this the first most of us in the Qt community hear about it? The project is basica…

I am not any of developer of this project , but for first concern I think most C++ bug fix'es can back ported very simply to 4.8, I think most of them already done by Qt itself.

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

#103

Post by 0xFFC » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 2:51 PM UTC

stevejones wrote: post #31

cjslep wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

C++ is a far more common skill than moc. I know C++, I can barely get my head around writing a Qt app.

Exactly , Even if TMP is much harder than MOC, TMP is standard , by forcing people to learn it they are not doing something wrong or ridiculous , but by forcing people to learn something specific to framework we are doing something wrong in my opinion {then why should we have standard at first place ? every one can create its own C++ }

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

#104

Post by nhaehnle » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 4:49 PM UTC

0xFFC wrote: post #101

nhaehnle wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this is an argument in favor of a fork. Even if what you write were true (and that hasn't been my impression), somebody would still have to do the work of improving QtWidgets even further. They might as well do that work in Qt itself without producing a fork. It's obvious judging from other comments in this thread that Qt has some problems making people unhappy. However, where those problems are genuine, the…

no fence , but do you understand what he/she talking about ? Qt (simply) does not allow any changes to Qtwidget code base's . (If I remember correctly) they even freezed Qtwidget API.

What on earth are you talking about?

Take a look at the repository mirror here, for example: https://github.com/qtproject/qtbase/. You can easily see plenty of commits that change src/widgets.

Seriously, please point to where you get these ideas from, because they're just extremely odd and surprising, seemingly coming out of nowhere as if somebody were spreading FUD.

(One theory that I have is that there may be confusion about the API and ABI compatibility guarantees that Qt makes. If you're not used to the C++ way of doing things, it's easy to misunderstand their policy. I assure you that there are no artificial limitations to changes in Qt, and if you have concrete grievances with something you should try and get it fixed inside Qt just as with any other open source project.)