To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
is using non-standard extensions and preprosessors
Coud we get a little more factual, please ? They only use one preprocessor/extension, and it's for the signal/slot system.
That's actually something that can be done without preprocessing, using templates, but the fact they chose not to do it this way is a far cry from "not using C++ constructs".
Of course, I suppose the discussion is way beyond reasonable argumentation on your part if you resort to such distortions of facts to make your point.
mystileef:
As far as I know, the KDE/Qt folks shawned much of the C++ standards, and for good reasons might I add.
For reasons that were probably good when they did it (ie much less good implementation of standard libraries and templates at the time), and it mostly concern libraries.
They didn't bury C++ under tons of non-standard stuff to make it work as you seem to imply. Despite them using some hand-made containers instead of some standard ones and a couple preprocessing tricks used by exactly one subsystem, it's C++, and all that is good and useful in kde/qt is still the result of C++ semantics and mechanics, and not something obtained in spite of the language.




Member since:
2005-07-06
nd there are people doing good, working, proper, readable, enjoyable c++. KDE is an example.
That's kinda funny because KDE (because of Qt) is using non-standard extensions and preprosessors instead of using built in C++ constructs. So does that mean that "good, working, proper" C++ doesn't actually need to use C++ constructs?