|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3fe1f82f@news.povray.org> , Wolfgang Wieser <wwi### [at] gmxde>
> wrote:
>
>>> In article <3fddcfb2@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
>>> wrote: Especially on Windos, but almost equally so on all others
>>> systems, there are so many specific things, trying to abstract them is a
>>> true waste of time
>>> unless a *very* small subset of all available functionality is used. In
>>> short, it is much better to do one thing well than three or four things
>>> badly.
>>
>> Have a look at Qt.
>
> Which does an extremely miserable job! In fact, Qt is just one of the
> worst GUI abstraction layers that exist (I am sure that is why it is so
> popular!).
>
Your opinion. There are a lot of people who see that the opposite
way.
And if you ever did GUI with Java, you will find Qt like heaven...
> It does not abstract most of the GUI elements at all, it just
> draws them on its own.
>
Correct. So what?
> Apart from that, Qt is hardly a good example for use of C++.
>
That's 50% true (max).
> Its signal implementation is a perfect example.
>
The signal implementation is indeed a strange thingy.
> As is is non-existent
> thread-safety - even if a native API used is fully thread-safe, Qt in
> general is not thread-safe.
>
I cannot comment on that. But I recall that early versions of Ot were
single threaded. And adding thread support to a single threaded design
often runs into trouble when system near components are involved.
> And its OpenGL widget for Windows is full of
> very obvious bugs (also this is only available with the expensive
> commercial code license); even M$ sample code shows how to properly create
> a correct Z-buffered contexts.
>
Hell, don't use Qt for OpenGL.
Either you want performance or you want Qt. But a factor of 3..5 in
GUI performance loss is acceptable in the most cases. (And still much
better than swing...)
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|