09.06.2019, 01:02, "Kevin Kofler" <kevin.kof...@chello.at>: > Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote: >> In other words, the advantages of keeping the Qt equivalents start to be >> (seriously) questioned. We're therefore left with the question of what >> to do with these equivalents. >> >> * We could play the catch-up game, but that requires a development >> investment that is simply not there any more, and is even questionable >> (is it the job of people developing Qt to rewrite algorithms widely >> available elsewhere?). >> >> * We could move the Qt equivalents into a "support library", maybe with >> deprecation warnings, maybe without. I'm not sure of the traction of >> this idea these days, but IIRC having "Qt4Support" was frowned upon when >> Qt 5 was being shaped. (Thus QtAlgorithms was left in QtCore, deprecated.) >> >> * We could just deprecate and tell people to migrate away. That's kind >> of the whole point of this thread, and comes with all the annoyances, >> and people reimplementing them downstream because they still want the >> convenience of a qSort(vector) over std::sort(vector.begin(), >> vector.end()). >> >> * We could keep things where they are, supported, thus offering the >> easier APIs; but simply reimplement them on top of the "upstream" >> equivalents. (Ignore the possible ABI break.) > > There is one option missing: > > * We could just keep the Qt equivalent as is, without adding the features > of the STL equivalent if there is no manpower to port them to the Qt > equivalent. Developers using the Qt version are happy with the Qt version > as is, and those that are not can always go and use the STL. There is no > point in deprecating or splitting out those classes, they should just > remain in QtCore where they belong. > >> Here's where the "extension" bites us: if the Qt equivalent offered >> something that upstream is not offering, and we can't reimplement it, >> then what do we do? Dropping support for it would be, at best, an API >> break; and at worst, a _silent_ behavioural change. > > That's why you should just not do that, and instead keep the Qt > implementation. Let the users decide for themselves whether they prefer the > advantages of one (Qt) or the other (STL) implementation. > > I, for one, don't give a darn about all those new C++11/14/whatever STL > features. I don't want to touch the STL with a 10-foot pole! The best thing > Qt can do with the STL is pretend it doesn't exist. (I wish QT_NO_STL were > still supported!)
Do you really wish to touch C++ with a ten foot pole? It's such a horrible, inconsistent, and complicated language! There are many higher-level languages on market which can make you more productive, and you surely won't need to use STL. Ever. -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
