[Kde-bindings] Common work for Qt4 bindings

[Richard Dale]

On Tuesday 13 September 2005 17:56, Simon Edwards wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:27, Richard Dale wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 September 2005 04:18, Eric Jardim wrote:
> > > I still don't now what would be the definitve solution for this, but if
> > > we don't do it now and do it right, people will not use it. One of KDE
> > > weakness is poor binding. I admit Gnome bindings are not perfect, but
> > > are much better that KDE's.
> >
> > Ouch! I'm not so sure. The PyQt/PyKDE and QtRuby/Korundum ones are about
> > as complete and well maintained as any other bindings for any other
> > toolkit.
>
> More so, PyKDE, and PyQt in particular have been around for years, are
> commerically supported, run on WIN32, and is used by hundreds of companies.
> PyQt even has a book written about it! It don't think you could describe
> that as weak.
>
> "Under used and under promoted" on the other hand, that you is something
> you could say...
Yes, I'm especially keen on promoting ruby Qt and KDE programming, but python 
and other scripting languages like javascript are just as important for KDE 
as a whole. And Java and C# bindings should have a place in the KDE4 
development environment..

If Smoke v2 has a Berkley license then there can be dual license commercial 
offerings based on a common library. Smoke v2 doesn't exist yet, and so 
technically it can be whatever we want it to be. So PyQt could be based on 
Smoke v2 and still have a commercial version. Is it time to move beyond SIP? 
On the other hand, common language bindings would be better for the KDE 
project, but not necessarily for an individual bindings project. I don't know 
and wouldn't have brought up the subject of Smoke based python bindings if 
Eric hadn't talked about doing Boost::Python KDE bindings.

-- Richard