Those of us not able to be on the L&G compilers would value the presence of moc
in the not-bleeding-edge compilers.
Source compatibility cannot be overstated. In fact, the original post on
http://woboq.com/ is asking the question, if it is possible, not that moc has
outlived it's usefulness or there is something better.
While I believe C++ will eventually get introspection, we have it today, and I
estimate moc to be around for another 20 years. But I expect the landscape of
programming languages to have shifted to something more 4th-gen or scripty.
(Javascript if it becomes templated will be a contender (sweet.js), as well as
any brain child of a consolidation between Java, C#, Python (the strong-typed
oop languages))
I think talk of killing moc is premature, as it works very well and everywhere.
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 at 2:26 PM
> From: "Till Oliver Knoll" <till.oliver.kn...@gmail.com>
> To: "Qt Project" <interest@qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Is moc obsolete?
>
>
>
> > Am 08.07.2015 um 08:57 schrieb Igor Mironchik <igor.mironc...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anybody know if Qt plans to remove moc in the future releases, let's
> > say in Qt 6?
>
> What's wrong with moc? :)
>
> Seriously, while in the very beginning I was doubtful about an "additional
> build step that messes around with my source" moc never got into my way. Even
> with Visual Studio 6 and the corresponding Qt VS Addon back in the days one
> hardly noticed the presence of moc.
>
> And all moc does is spit out some more C++ code, which - most importantly for
> me - I never get to see! So why would I care about moc?
>
> Granted, initially moc did not take #defines and #ifdefs (mostly evil anyway)
> into account (IIRC moc now does some pre-processing on its own, or runs after
> the preprocess phase...), linker errors due to stale moc_* files occured
> (mostly due to different time stamps on network shares - "Try to compile in a
> minute! It'll work!") or "DLL export" issues then and when ("you need to DLL
> export the whole class that is going to be moc'ed - not just selected
> public/protected methods/symbols").
>
> But from a practical standpoint - especially in combination with qmake/Qt
> Creator - IMHO moc does its job well: create a "meta system, signal/slot
> connections etc."
>
> Or did I miss something?
>
> Cheers,
> Oliver
> _______________________________________________
> 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
