On Apr 16, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> 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 (no .h vs. .cpp), and, like >> an interpreted language, the only distribution mechanism *is the source >> itself*. There is no such thing as binary compatibility. > > Because there's no such thing as binary distribution in the first place. That > means you cannot provide a component without the source. If we insisted on > all > Qt users simply recompiling every time that Qt changed, then we could apply > the same to C++ and only retain source compatibility. That is, after all, > what > Boost does.
That’s why the Go folks worry so much about super-fast compile times.. > By the way, is it even possible to distribute a binary application? Yes, the final product of the compilation process is a (fat) static binary. > [cut] >> hence my advocacy of Qt potentially investing some effort here. > > Seems like we already have a binding to Go. What else do we need? Yeah, but it’s not native Go, so it doesn’t really advance anything. Potentially a usable stop-gap but given the limitations with the way that Go and C++ interface, I doubt many people using Go would find it a satisfying solution. The proposal is that this is an opportunity for “next gen Qt” not a plea for a port of the existing product.. Cheers, - Randy _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
