Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:00 UTC, submitted by Timothy R. Butler
GNU, GPL, Open Source Tim Butler knew when he mentioned something negative about the GNU Project's General Public License (GPL), in his column on KDE last week, he would inevitably be accused of arguing the GPL was a bad license. What did not fit into that piece shall now be dealt with: is the GPL a bad license or is the issue he complained about something else?
Thread beginning with comment 3795
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
j-kidd
Member since:
2005-07-06

> PyQT/PyKDE exist, but don't have ample documentation.

Err... PyQt/PyKDE only need a few pages of documentation because for the most parts, they work just like the C++ equivalents and developers can just refer to the official Qt doc. C++ is OO, Python is OO, so what do you expect?

Of course, if you are going to write an OO language binding for a non-OO toolkit that pretends to be OO, then you will need a lot of documentation.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

That's a pretty lousy statement. The difference between writing in C++ and Python is like the difference between night and day. Your claim that the PyQT bindings does not need adequate documentation because QT has good ones is preposterous. Well, except if writing applications via trial and error, and hunches are your cup of tea.

Reply Parent Score: 1

j-kidd Member since:
2005-07-06

Lousy statement or not, I have written PyQt/PyKDE apps and found the documentation to be more than adequate. Instead of writing some pointless reply, please state specifically what extra documentation is needed for PyQt/PyKDE.

Reply Parent Score: 1