Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 21:32 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Thread beginning with comment 442513
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.
RE[5]: Wow! Qt has become so bloated...time for a new lib...
by siride on Fri 24th Sep 2010 14:58
in reply to "RE[4]: Wow! Qt has become so bloated...time for a new lib..."
"If you're so dead set against using tools why don't you program in assembler?
I use tools, but I don't want to use more tools than what is actually required. The MOC is not really necessary in order to have signals and slots: any other signals and slots system does not use an external tool. "
MOC really is required for Qt, so you have to use it. End of story. Just deal with it. I mean, what are you gaining by taking this ridiculous stance about MOC? It's not that hard. It costs pretty much nothing. It's fairly automatic if you use any type of build system at all. Stop bitching about something that almost nobody else cares about and just get your job done. Really isn't that hard. People like you make me weep for the programming community.
"Is there any Decent and modern gui toolkit that does not use external tools to create boilerplate code?
Nope. That's what I said. "
A lot of other toolkits actually do use autogenerated code. Some Java frameworks do it. .NET does it. It makes things easier because you can avoid the tedium of building your GUI in pure code.
As I said in another comment, if C++ had proper reflection, MOC wouldn't be needed. Yet another reason why C++ is actually a poor language for building GUIs (among other things).
RE[6]: Wow! Qt has become so bloated...time for a new lib...
by axilmar on Fri 24th Sep 2010 15:33
in reply to "RE[5]: Wow! Qt has become so bloated...time for a new lib..."
MOC really is required for Qt, so you have to use it. End of story. Just deal with it.
Nope, sorry, the attritude of 'just deal with it' is not acceptable for me.
I mean, what are you gaining by taking this ridiculous stance about MOC? It's not that hard. It costs pretty much nothing. It's fairly automatic if you use any type of build system at all. Stop bitching about something that almost nobody else cares about and just get your job done. Really isn't that hard. People like you make me weep for the programming community.
I guess you never had to manually setup the MOC for each file you created, because there was no support for the MOC in the IDE of your choice. It happened to me, in the context of the project at work, and it was not pretty.
RE[6]: Wow! Qt has become so bloated...time for a new lib...
by nt_jerkface on Fri 24th Sep 2010 16:40
in reply to "RE[5]: Wow! Qt has become so bloated...time for a new lib..."
RE[5]: Wow! Qt has become so bloated...time for a new lib...
by _txf_ on Fri 24th Sep 2010 16:07
in reply to "RE[4]: Wow! Qt has become so bloated...time for a new lib..."
Possibly what I should have added:
Is there any other way to automatically create boilerplate code short of creating a new language (that probably will do so behind the scenes anyway)?
That is unless you're a masochist that enjoys writing boilerplate code just to keep purity in the language (of which c++ isn't already)?
Personally I prefer to make applications quickly instead of writing reams of code that are exact copies of that produced by machines. My time is pretty valuable to me.
Edited 2010-09-24 16:11 UTC





Member since:
2006-03-20
I use tools, but I don't want to use more tools than what is actually required. The MOC is not really necessary in order to have signals and slots: any other signals and slots system does not use an external tool.
Nope. That's what I said.