QtScript considered dangerous

[Martin Sandsmark]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:28:41AM +0200, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
> 1. AFAIR, there are some subtle differences between KJS and QtScript. I'd be 
> hard pressed to provide an example, but I know for sure that I have run into 
> some, personally. Some code that worked fine in QtScript did not work for me 
> in KJS (note: I was using kjsembed via Kross, then).

If you could come up with some such examples, maybe we could fix them. :-)

Also, KJS has been under active development the whole time, so there is a
probability that the problems you were experiencing have already been fixed.


> 1b. While, certainly, any such incompatibilities could easily be addressed 
> inside the Kate code base, keep in mind that a switch of engine could also 
> cause trouble for users' custom scripts.

But this is something we can fix in KJS, both since it is actively
maintained, and it is developed together with Kate.

I'm not saying I can guarantee that there won't be any regressions or
incompatibilities, but I think the gain (not crashing in a huge codebase out
of our reach) outweighs the possible, but fixable, regressions.


> 1c. Even if the above incompatibilities were a mere figment of my imagination, 
> KJS does have it's own set of bugs. These may (or may not) be more benign than 
> those of QtScript. They may be easier for us to get fixed, but that's because 
> there is no third party to point fingers at, in the first place.

And because it has active developers who you can talk to.


> 2. Kate is not the only user of QtScript in the KDE world. Do we want to 
> switch all other KDE apps to KJS, too? Will that really be the most efficient 
> solution?

Let's start small, and dream big? :-)

-- 
Martin Sandsmark