Reason for -no-stl in qt-copy configure recommendation?

[Cristian Tibirna]

On Tuesday, 29 April 2003 07:17, Daniel Stone wrote:

> I've done a lot more STL coding than Qt in the past month or so, and I'm
> getting to like the STL more and more, and Qt less and less. The only
> thing Qt has going for it over STL+Boost for my usage is that it does
> funky things with sockets (I'm not doing GUI stuff).

You can't use your personal experience as an argument. And KDE _is_ about 
writing GUIs, at which Qt is much better. Since, more often than not, 
supporting two libraries (that offer a nonvoid intersection of functionality) 
at the same time in the same code isn't a joy, choosing the one who fits most 
of the job at hand better is essential. Yes, STL could eventually do template 
programming easier than Qt does in some aspects. But Qt has a host of 
advantages which make it indispensable for KDE development, as KDE isn't at 
all about template programming. And since it also offers ways of doing what 
STL does (even if we would be to accept that not as well as STL), Qt should 
be the final choice.

-- 
Cristian Tibirna
KDE developer .. tibirna at kde.org .. http://www.kde.org