On Wednesday 11 April 2012 16:46:55 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > So this isn't why I "fear" Qt 5. What makes me uneasy is how Qt seems > to slowly (but surely?) deprecate C++ for JavaScript. I believe all GUI > code should be in C++. JavaScript, like all dynamic and weakly-typed > languages, always looked to me as a language for lazy people who don't > care about runtime errors and view the extremely helpful compile-time > checks as an "annoyance." Qt was always a C++ toolkit, and now it seems > it's slowly becoming a JavaScript toolkit instead. All would be OK if > JavaScript was offered through bindings. But making it a native part, > without a way to get to its functionality with pure C++ code; that just > sucks and doesn't make sense. Common sense suggests JavaScript is a > high-level interface to the low-level C++ parts. Qt decided to go > against common sense here. And it kind of feels like we're being > betrayed; after all these years sticking with Qt, it might turn its back > on us, hanging out with its new homies, the mobile folks, because we're > not cool enough anymore to hang around with. > > Anyway, I'm ranting too much since Qt 5 has not really deprecated C++. > I just don't like the fact that I might need to put a "yet?" in the > previous sentence. OK, these are statements I can mostly agree with! Yes, it's really a shame that JavaScript shall become a more "important" language. It's the opposite, and I will not be supporting that move. Also, I guess that many here think similarly.
But you shouldn't really "fear" that... "superior technology" will never be based on JavaScript. And again, I see it as a very high-level *alternative* and nothing else. We should keep it that way and not push it by discussing this matter in a sense that it scares us :). Cheers, René
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
