I probably would have gone with Python, and avoid pointers, as many languages
to their best to obfuscate them. But your C was not a bad decision. It is
lingua franca. :-)
Just remind them that JS was invented in 10 days back in 1992, and standardized
by a committee that had no business standardizing it. That said, with
everything targeting JS, it's not a bad decision either.
I'm relatively [adjective] about the new C++ versions. On one hand C++ looks
strange. The code to map/filter/transform looks nothing like I'd expect
(transform):
Actual:
std::vector<int> x = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
std::vector<int> y;
std::transform(x.begin(), x.end(), std::back_inserter(y), [](int elem){ return
elem * elem; });
Expected:
auto y = std::transform(std::vector<int> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, [int elem] { return
elem*elem });
But the new initializer syntax is a joy.
SFINAE, etc. It creates pretty unreadable code. It takes me several minutes to
parse a line of modern C++, which violates several software development
principles in that it should be easy to understand, optimized for reading,
OTHER Developers, DRY, DR's 10 times harder statement. I've learned that to
grok C++, you must first realize that you're not writing a program that does
something, instead you're telling the compiler how to build the program. "Doing
what you want" is just a "side effect".
I don't know how long C++ can exist with that mentality. The compiler should
figure out what I mean. Const should be automatically applied where it can
based on code paths. It's something I do, it's easy to determine, and having it
auto applied would be just fine. Or maybe have a linter tell you/upgrade it to
const.
Qt is attractive because I "code less and create more". I rely on Qt to
translate the C++ committee's/stdlib output into something usable by
developers, not language nerds. (Reminder there's more languages than C++, I've
got to learn Dart now, apparently)
But the new initializer syntax is a joy, at least.
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:13 PM
> From: "Christoph Feck" <cf...@kde.org>
> To: inter...@lists.qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Interest] vs. Flutter
>
> On 02/19/19 20:47, Jason H wrote:
> > What I've learned is that it's better to stand on the shoulders of giants
> > than to rewrite the universe from scratch. I dream of a say where we can
> > code things and everyone else regardless of platform can run it. I thought
> > this was going to be .Net CLR, or Java VM, but corporate ownership
> > initiatives derailed them (Much like the "You will" ATT ads of the 90s - we
> > got it, but not from ATT). But C/C++ runs all more platforms/processors.
> > Linux has come a long way in terms of bringing all CPUs a usable software
> > ecosystem. And this though rather obtuse is one reason to pick Qt - that
> > it'll support any system that can run a C++ compiler. You don't technically
> > need to use QML, you can keep going with C++.
>
> Once upon a time a mother of two curious boys called me, asking me to
> teach them programming. They have no clue what language to start with,
> so I suggested C as a base, to later learn Python, C++, Java (or C#).
> Then some "smart" student told one of the kids "JavaScript is da future
> of da Internetz". I stopped teaching them after it was suggested to
> stop the C course and swap it for a JavaScript course.
>
> C/C++ will be relevant in the future. All other languages will come and
> go (no pun intended).
>
> Whether Qt will be relevant in the future lies in the hands of its
> developers. Don't ruin it.
>
> Christoph Feck
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
>
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
