Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Jul 2005 14:41 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 1583
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
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.