It's ironic in a way that every major graphical toolkit (and with many large software projects in general) that I've worked with over decades now, the attitude has commonly seemed to have been that "new" is better than "stable".
The end result is a product full of both older and newer unstable features. Then credibility and reputation both take a major hit and for serious production users, frustration overwhelms them as they wait for features they have been using and investing years of effort/time/money into to simply work without major defects. More often than not though, if these features are not part of the "new shiny strategy", they tend to just rot... > On 3 Oct. 2016, at 18:14, Bernhard Lindner <priv...@bernhard-lindner.de> > wrote: > > 1. New features (quantity) are priorized over bug fixing (quality). > Suggestions > are almost sensless. I reduced writing bug reports and totally gave up > writing > suggestions due to this. > > 2. Widgets have too low priority. In general new fancy features are priorized > above bread-and-butter features from my point of view. > > 3. Components have been declared outdated while the replacements did not > provide the same feature set. This seriously damages Qt's reputation. > >> 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. > > -- > Regards, Bernhard > _______________________________________________ > 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
