19.09.2016, 21:54, "André Pönitz" <apoen...@t-online.de>: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 09:20:43PM +0100, Sérgio Martins wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It's not unusual for us developers and contributors to lose >> perspective of what's important. >> After many years spent on very particular implementation details, it >> becomes difficult to see outside of the box. >> >> And because we already know the good aspects I'm asking only about the bad. >> No need to discuss or reach an agreement, just go ahead and enumerate >> what you don't like. >> >> Personally, I don't know (too much time inside the box), but after >> googling these came up frequently: >> >> - C++ is difficult, Qt lacks quality bindings for mainstream languages >> - moc (on build systems that don't automate this step) >> - FUD around licensing >> >> Please state your top ones, even if it was already stated by someone >> else, so we have an idea about which ones matter more. > > On the technical side: > > #1: The very existence of *two* largely incompatible technology stacks. > > #2: Lack of full C++ access to the stack that currently receives most > development attention. > > [repeat] > > #6: Mandatory(!) use of JavaScript in said stack, embedded(!) in a DSL, > thwarting any claims of being "declarative" and any originally hoped-for > benefits for tooling.
6a. Mandatory use of particular implementation of JavaScript in said stack > > [#7: Incompatitible feature development for both stacks, would be a > non-issue if #1 didn't exist] > > Andre' > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
