Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 17:21:31 PDT Scott Bloom wrote: > Hard failure here. Because Qt decided to change the list of supported > compilers and OSes in the Qt 5 timeframe, (another major problem with the > Qt universe), I know of many companies stuck at 5.12. BTW, that includes > Intel on two

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 09:58:50 PDT André Pönitz wrote: > > The exact opposite is the correct thing: > > - deprecation messages while compiling the source code are correct > > - messages to the mailing list are not sufficient > > Sorry, this assumes that "user" people constantly compile the

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

-Original Message- From: Interest On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 15:44 To: interest@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 04:48:08 PDT Roland Hughes wrote: > On 3/24/21 6:00 AM,

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 09:05:50 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote: > >> * I've got a square peg (a QList) and a round hole (an function I made > >> that takes a QSet), so I need conversions to call it. > > > > And what, exactly, is the solution here? Probably "ranges", but those > > ar

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 07:57:57 PDT Matthew Woehlke wrote: > "Just ignore it" may not be an option; sometimes there are *policies* > that preclude this. If your policy is that you will port away from everything that got deprecated, then do so. If your policy is that you shall have no warnin

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 07:33:35 PDT Jason H wrote: > The elephant in the room is that Qt5 QList an QVector can have majorly > different impacts on memory. A QList is more tolerant of memory > fragmentation than QVector as you need o reallocate a > contiguous chunk of memory successfully. Where

Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 23

On Tuesday, 23 March 2021 06:25:09 PDT Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Why is QList removed? (I don't mean the *name* "QList", I mean the > container with indirect storage and reference stability. It's useful, > and unlike QHash, there is no STL equivalent available.) Because everyone kept complaining th

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 04:48:08 PDT Roland Hughes wrote: > On 3/24/21 6:00 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote: > > The exact opposite is the correct thing: > > - deprecation messages while compiling the source code are correct > > - messages to the mailing list are not sufficient >

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods

On Tuesday, 23 March 2021 09:02:04 PDT Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 23/03/2021 11.44, Volker Hilsheimer wrote: > > I wished I had seen the level of energy y’all are putting right now > > into this email thread over the last two years when we discussed > > where to go with Qt 6, and when the work act

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On 3/24/21 1:45 PM, André Pönitz wrote: On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:10:55AM -0400, Andy wrote: Do you think everyone can take a moment and realize that this mailing list has dozens of people on it. 1328 as of now. Incidentally - even this was surely not the point you wanted to make - t

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:17:02PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote: > [...] > The other reason was more profound and related to the deprecation of these > APIs, meaning that in the huge majority of usages found was a form of > algorithmic abuse. Should we offer APIs which facilitate bad

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 05:09:51PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday, 22 March 2021 14:55:04 PDT Roland Hughes wrote: > > A deprecation message at compile time is __not__ a warning to the > > installed base. This is especially true for things that were built with > > earlier versions of Qt

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

> > > >> * I've got a square peg (a QList) and a round hole (an function I made > >> that takes a QSet), so I need conversions to call it. > > And what, exactly, is the solution here? Probably "ranges", but those > > aren't available yet. > > Not an easy answer, but maybe start not to have functio

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

Hi, On 24/03/2021 15:57, Matthew Woehlke wrote: ...we might not be having this conversation. Sure. I don't get called to make *that* decision, though. So I also had to live through that. I've proposed helpers and cleanups for 5.15/6.0 and those didn't land due lack of time or API/ABI const

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On 24/03/2021 09.45, Volker Hilsheimer wrote: On 24 Mar 2021, at 13:20, Roland Hughes wrote: death of OpenSource LTS Get the patches you need from the dev branch. Wait, so is TQtC *asking* the community to fork Qt? Because that's how this reads: 'TQtC has killed open source LTS; we (TQtC) wo

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods

> On 24 Mar 2021, at 15:06, eric.fedosej...@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Interest On Behalf Of Volker > Hilsheimer > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 4:06 AM > >> For feedback regarding the licensing changes made that context (including >> 5.15), I’d suggest you go back to the respective email th

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On 24/03/2021 09.46, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: And anyways these methods are still fully supported within Qt 5. Tell that to all the people that compile with -Werror. Or just want their code to compile without being full of warning spam. "Just ignore it" may not be an option; sometimes there

Re: [Interest] [Qt3d] Rendering 3D object with 2D coordinates

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:55 AM Alex john wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:22 AM Walter Rawdanik wrote: > > > > You can’t convert 2d coordinates to a 3d position because you are missing > > the z coordinate. > > I can have a dummy z value as 1 for the calculation. The problem is > similar

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

> > Probably. There's only so much space for the message in them. I'm trying > to point out that the specific motivation here isn't even remotely > _technical_ (e.g. is this hard to implement correctly; as you've shown, > it's super easy), but a _design_ one (is this API *good*?). > > And anyways

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

Do you think everyone can take a moment and realize that this mailing list has dozens of people on it. Every email we receive takes some non-zero amount of time to deal with. Please consider this before clicking "send". --- Andy Maloney // https://asmaloney.com twitter ~ @asmaloney

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

> > Oh, another problem I've run into is that the replacements for a lot of these > deprecated methods aren't even available until the same version that > deprecated them. That makes it a PITA to write warning-free code when we > have to support older versions of Qt. > [Maurice Kalinowski] I as

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods

From: Interest On Behalf Of Volker Hilsheimer Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 4:06 AM >For feedback regarding the licensing changes made that context (including >5.15), I’d suggest you go back to the respective email thread if you just want >to vent, or call your sales rep in The Qt Company. T

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On 3/24/21 8:45 AM, Volker Hilsheimer wrote: The research done by e.g. DORA around continuous deployment, including in safety critical environments, tells a different story than your anecdotes. https://www.devops-research.com/research.html You cannot continuously deploy to a medical device tha

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 02:44, Roland Hughes wrote: > On 3/24/21 8:21 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 01:22, Roland Hughes > > wrote: > Apparently Martians fart sulfur Apparently Roland talks sulfur ___ Interest mailing list I

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 02:36, Ulf Hermann wrote: > > On 3/24/21 2:21 PM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 01:22, Roland Hughes > > wrote: > >> You forgot customer abandonment > >> > >> death of OpenSource LTS > >> > >> Qt 6 being useless > >> > >> QML needing to be ripped ou

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On 24/03/2021 13:49, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Let's take e.g. QList::toSet as an example. The deprecation message says to use `QSet(list.begin(), list.end())` instead. How, then, is the correct implementation*not*: QSet QList::toSet() { return QSet{begin(), end()}; } That is the correct impl

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

> On 24 Mar 2021, at 13:20, Roland Hughes wrote: >>> Who said anything about "ever?" Or even "last year." Have you never built >>> anything that is actually finished, and stays finished, and relevant, and >>> functional for 10, 20, 30 years? Granted, if I get 10 years of use out of >>> anyth

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On 3/24/21 8:21 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 01:22, Roland Hughes wrote: You forgot customer abandonment death of OpenSource LTS Qt 6 being useless QML needing to be ripped out. Is there life on Mars? Apparently Martians fart sulfur https://futurism.com/scientis

Re: [Interest] anti-Tivo - was The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, , methods

On 3/24/21 6:00 AM, Benjamin TERRIER wrote: On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 10:40, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: It is possible to use software with an anti-tivo license in critical systems, it just requires you to use your brain before deploying it in your device. Question is whether you wouldn't want to u

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On 3/24/21 2:21 PM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 01:22, Roland Hughes wrote: You forgot customer abandonment death of OpenSource LTS Qt 6 being useless QML needing to be ripped out. Is there life on Mars? I'm from Mars. ___

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 8:49 AM > From: "Matthew Woehlke" > To: "Giuseppe D'Angelo" , interest@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: > Mixing Commercial and Open...) > > On 24/03/2021 07.17, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wro

Re: [Interest] anti-Tivo - was The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, , methods

On 3/24/21 6:00 AM, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: Hi, [this is getting a bit off-topic, but anyway...] On 23/03/2021 16:43, Roland Hughes wrote: The OpenSource community was blind, deaf, and dumb when they railed against Tivo locking down their devices and came up with all of these poisoned pills i

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 01:22, Roland Hughes wrote: > You forgot customer abandonment > > death of OpenSource LTS > > Qt 6 being useless > > QML needing to be ripped out. Is there life on Mars? ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://li

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On 24/03/2021 07.17, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote: On 22/03/2021 17:19, Thiago Macieira wrote: I thought we'd fixed that and reverted them. Or didn't we add toContainer? Peppe, what was our final conclusion here? There was no conclusion reached, unfortunately, and didn't manage to p

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On 3/24/21 6:00 AM, Volker Hilsheimer wrote: Who said anything about "ever?" Or even "last year." Have you never built anything that is actually finished, and stays finished, and relevant, and functional for 10, 20, 30 years? Granted, if I get 10 years of use out of anything built in this

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 12:17, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest < interest@qt-project.org> wrote: > On 22/03/2021 17:19, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > I thought we'd fixed that and reverted them. Or didn't we add > toContainer? > > > > Peppe, what was our final conclusion here? > > There was no conclusi

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On 3/24/21 6:00 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote: The exact opposite is the correct thing: - deprecation messages while compiling the source code are correct - messages to the mailing list are not sufficient No, it's not. It only seems correct if you live in a world where nothing

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience,, methods

On 3/24/21 6:00 AM, Bernhard Lindner wrote: The Wolfe oven needed a stacked widget, not a state machine. Project craters like these aren't helping the reputation of Qt. Can you explain that? I have seen software going down the drain because people didn't use state machines. I have seen softwa

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

On 22/03/2021 17:19, Thiago Macieira wrote: I thought we'd fixed that and reverted them. Or didn't we add toContainer? Peppe, what was our final conclusion here? There was no conclusion reached, unfortunately, and didn't manage to provide a replacement in time. I was (and still am) afraid at

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 10:40, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: > > It is possible to use software with an anti-tivo license in critical > systems, it just requires you to use your brain before deploying it in > your device. Question is whether you wouldn't want to use something else > anyway, because you

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods

> On 24 Mar 2021, at 08:43, Max Paperno wrote: > On 3/23/2021 11:44 AM, Volker Hilsheimer wrote: > ... >> I personally wonder why people that never want to change what they built >> last year want to develop software development. Isn’t that what makes >> building stuff out of bits and ideas so m

Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods

On 3/23/2021 11:44 AM, Volker Hilsheimer wrote: ... I personally wonder why people that never want to change what they built last year want to develop software development. Isn’t that what makes building stuff out of bits and ideas so much more interesting than building stuff out of sticks