2017 at 8:02 AM
> From: "Randall O'Reilly"
> To: "Konstantin Tokarev"
> Cc: "development@qt-project.org"
> Subject: Re: [Development] As Qt contemplates its future..
>
> With the recent language explosion, there are now languages to fit everyone’s
>
On Apr 15, 2017, at 19:14, Randall O'Reilly wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
>>
>> Em sexta-feira, 14 de abril de 2017, às 22:38:25 PDT, Randall O'Reilly
>> escreveu:
>>> One of the major innovations in Go is that it avoids all of those problems.
>>> You only ev
Randall O'Reilly wrote:
> One of the major innovations in Go is that it avoids all of those
> problems. You only ever write things once, in one place (no .h vs. .cpp),
> and, like an interpreted language, the only distribution mechanism *is the
> source itself*. There is no such thing as binary co
15.04.2017, 01:23, "Shawn Rutledge" :
>> On 13 Apr 2017, at 14:02, Randall O'Reilly
>> wrote:
>>
>> With the recent language explosion, there are now languages to fit
>> everyone’s biases and aesthetics.
>
> This explosion is possible because of common language backends and VMs like
> the J
Em sábado, 15 de abril de 2017, às 10:14:45 PDT, Randall O'Reilly escreveu:
> > Because there's no such thing as binary distribution in the first place.
> > That means you cannot provide a component without the source. If we
> > insisted on all Qt users simply recompiling every time that Qt changed
On Apr 16, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> Em sexta-feira, 14 de abril de 2017, às 22:38:25 PDT, Randall O'Reilly
> escreveu:
>> One of the major innovations in Go is that it avoids all of those problems.
>> You only ever write things once, in one place (no .h vs. .cpp), and, like
>
Em sexta-feira, 14 de abril de 2017, às 22:38:25 PDT, Randall O'Reilly
escreveu:
> One of the major innovations in Go is that it avoids all of those problems.
> You only ever write things once, in one place (no .h vs. .cpp), and, like
> an interpreted language, the only distribution mechanism *is
On Samstag, 15. April 2017 00:23:01 CEST Shawn Rutledge wrote:
[...]
> The Rust guys make the point that it’s necessary to rewrite lots of old
> stuff in Rust in order to have all the security that it can guarantee.
No, that's a common myth.
I've heard people say: "There is no point in making/usin
On Apr 15, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Shawn Rutledge wrote:
>
>
>> On 13 Apr 2017, at 14:02, Randall O'Reilly
>> wrote:
>>
>> With the recent language explosion, there are now languages to fit
>> everyone’s biases and aesthetics.
>
> This explosion is possible because of common language backends a
> On 13 Apr 2017, at 14:02, Randall O'Reilly wrote:
>
> With the recent language explosion, there are now languages to fit everyone’s
> biases and aesthetics.
This explosion is possible because of common language backends and VMs like the
JVM, CLR or LLVM. (Hacking gcc to add a new languag
:16 PM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] As Qt contemplates its future..
Em quinta-feira, 13 de abril de 2017, às 07:44:09 PDT, Alejandro Exojo
escreveu:
> On Thursday 13 April 2017 21:02:59 Randall O'Reilly wrote:
> > This also means that there is an endless
Em quinta-feira, 13 de abril de 2017, às 07:44:09 PDT, Alejandro Exojo
escreveu:
> On Thursday 13 April 2017 21:02:59 Randall O'Reilly wrote:
> > This also means that there is an endless potential for language wars,
> > which
> > I’m sure nobody wants to rehash on this list.
>
> Are you sure? Bec
On Thursday 13 April 2017 21:02:59 Randall O'Reilly wrote:
> This also means that there is an endless potential for language wars, which
> I’m sure nobody wants to rehash on this list.
Are you sure? Because in the next sentences seem like you exactly started to
fight for one side. You said that C
With the recent language explosion, there are now languages to fit everyone’s
biases and aesthetics. This also means that there is an endless potential for
language wars, which I’m sure nobody wants to rehash on this list. My point is
just that Go represents a particular set of choices that I
13.04.2017, 13:25, "Konstantin Tokarev" :
> 13.04.2017, 12:32, "Nikita Krupenko" :
>> On четверг, 13 апреля 2017 г. 08:24:39 EEST Randall O'Reilly wrote:
>>> In the context of all this recent discussion about modernizing Qt to
>>> accommodate updates to C++, has anyone given any thought to t
13.04.2017, 12:32, "Nikita Krupenko" :
> On четверг, 13 апреля 2017 г. 08:24:39 EEST Randall O'Reilly wrote:
>> In the context of all this recent discussion about modernizing Qt to
>> accommodate updates to C++, has anyone given any thought to the radical
>> idea of creating a brand new produc
On четверг, 13 апреля 2017 г. 08:24:39 EEST Randall O'Reilly wrote:
> In the context of all this recent discussion about modernizing Qt to
> accommodate updates to C++, has anyone given any thought to the radical
> idea of creating a brand new product using Go? Go (golang) is rapidly
> gaining in
13.04.2017, 08:25, "Randall O'Reilly" :
> In the context of all this recent discussion about modernizing Qt to
> accommodate updates to C++, has anyone given any thought to the radical idea
> of creating a brand new product using Go? Go (golang) is rapidly gaining in
> popularity, and seems to
In the context of all this recent discussion about modernizing Qt to
accommodate updates to C++, has anyone given any thought to the radical idea of
creating a brand new product using Go? Go (golang) is rapidly gaining in
popularity, and seems to embody everything that is great about Qt (simpli
19 matches
Mail list logo
