Very well expressed... Philippe
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:21:18 +0100 Christian Dähn <da...@asinteg.de> wrote: > Hallo Andre´, > > thanks for your very philosophic (sorry: but off topic) post. > > But your post shows really in depth the problems between developer's opinions > and real life requirements. > > Business grade frameworks have to last for many many years, > while (pure) open source projects are far beyond this business > requirement. A steady changing API causes investments to break > and maintenance costs to explode. > > Further a quick deprecation of a very basic functionality (like QtScript) > can break complete thirdparty solutions build on top of Qt (as many many > business applications, like mine). > > So every smart manager would stop his developers and take them down > to earth - what we see here is just a small group deciding about world wide > used public APIs without ever thinking about building up a migration path > nor thinking about the thousands of developers who are using QtScript to > earn their salary and thus pay for the developers work (license fees to > Digia). > > And as you can read inside this thread and the original thread from february > there still is no full support for all QtScript functions and types, nor will > there > be any chance of a migration path, nor will there be a graphic script > debugger, > nor will old scripts work with the new and not as famous as thought QML > script engine. > > From my experience and opinion as senior developer this is a very common > problem of open source developers not concerning customers and business > requirements. They just decide about giant changes without thinking about > consequences and how to support their paying customers. > > And this is a management problem, too. > > For me as paying customer it looks like Digia / Qt Company doesn't operate > in any customer oriented way. Otherwise the communication would be much > better and nobody would talk about deprecating something without offering > support for a smart migration. > > Instead customers and users are described as just angry birds who fear any > small changes and just complain. Of course they do, because nobody was > part of this hughe descision. > > Great work guys! > > Greetz, > Chris > > PS: I work with Qt since 1999 and whitnessed so many big changes - but no > and honestly no change made me so angry and afraid like this. > I'm really really worried about how keeping my industrial apps alive, > which I MUST maintain for many years while keeping them secure. > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > > > Am 17.03.2015 um 20:51 schrieb André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de>: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:37:23PM +0100, Alejandro Exojo wrote: > >> El Tuesday 17 March 2015, Koehne Kai escribió: > >>> The QtQml library has no GUI dependency. So while I see some porting > >>> effort > >>> to switch from QtScript to QtQml, it's not true that this prevents command > >>> line applications. > >>> > >>> And you don't have to use the QML language either ... QtQml has a > >>> QJSEngine > >>> class. > >> > >> Or... keep using QtScript. People seem to complain only when a module is > >> deprecated in a blog post, but don't raise their voice when they see no > >> commits at all: > > > > This is understandable insofar as "keeping the status quo" is good enough, > > if not "all that's desirable", in a lot of setups. > > > > People who have a bread-and-butter-application that happens to use libraries > > X_1 ... X_n as *helpers* for their primary case are typically only > > interested > > in keeping the depenendencies in a workable state in their prefered setup, > > i.e. compatible with the toolchain and tooling they choose for their main > > application. > > > > Performance improvements and security fixes for those libraries dependencies > > are typically welcome, less so source incompatible changes that require > > changes to their general setup or, worse, their b&b application itself. > > > >> If it worked for you in previous releases, it should work more or less the > >> same in the next ones, because it received almost no changes. > > > > Right. > > > > And this may continue for a while. But at some time $ANCIENT_VERSION_OF_X_I > > does not compile with $PREFERED_COMPILER anymore. Then $PEOPLE have a > > problem. > > Since $PEOPLE know this happens rather sooner than later after $X_I is > > called > > "deprecated" or "done", $PEOPLE will start complaining as soon as $X_I is > > put > > in that basket. That is predictable (and if I may add: sane and rational) > > human behaviour. > > > > Andre' > > _______________________________________________ > > Interest mailing list > > Interest@qt-project.org > > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
