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