On 23/03/2021 10.36, Benjamen Meyer via Interest wrote:
On 3/23/21 10:09 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Also, C++ isn't a dictatorship the way Qt is. Anyone can object to any
change, not just on a mailing list, but in person. Anyone can, in theory
(in practice, depending on where you live, there may be a non-trivial
membership fee required) *vote* against a change. We, as the committee,
generally try to be considerate of the community when making changes,
and there is quite a lot of emphasis on not breaking existing code, even
as far back as C++98.
How many C++ devs are on those?
Hundreds, which is probably more than the number of people making
decisions for Qt.
Likely only those whose companies are paying them to be, and a few
that got there via academics (I've personally known and worked with
one person; outside of the folks I've seen here on the Qt lists.)
Even so, that's a lower bar than "you must be an employee of TQtC" (and
even that is probably not sufficient). The bar also happens to be much
lower right now due to COVID, since there are no in-person meetings
happening.
In any case, you've made an unsubstantiated allegation that the
committee does not care about C++ users. Please provide evidence to back
that up. So far, all I've seen is "C++ also deprecates stuff". You
haven't shown that the deprecations are actually *harmful* to the C++
community on anything like the scale to which Qt's recent changes have
been harmful.
Deprecations, even in Qt, aren't always bad. Some recent Qt
deprecations, however, have caused major pain. Now you are apparently
claiming that C++ is "just as bad", but I have yet to see that claim
substantiated.
--
Matthew
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
