| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 23:39 UTC (Tue) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)In reply to: GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition by boudewijn
Parent article: GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
I think the best defense of Qt is that its roots predate the C++98 standard. Nevertheless, it's still non-standard, and loses appeal thereby.
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
Posted Dec 13, 2005 23:46 UTC (Tue) by dhess (subscriber, #7827) [Link]
I think the best defense of Qt is that its roots predate the C++98 standard. Nevertheless, it's still non-standard, and loses appeal thereby.Right, like I said, it made sense before reasonable STL implementations were available, but now it's just a pain.
I was hoping that Qt 4 would deprecate some of the redundant classes, but that doesn't appear to be the case.