Google Summer of Code 2006 Project proposals
kuba at mareimbrium.org
Mon Apr 24 18:36:06 UTC 2006
On Monday 24 April 2006 05:58, Roberto Raggi wrote:
> Hi Hamish!
> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 10:55, Hamish Rodda wrote:
> > The approach being taken by active developers is our internal parser, and
> > we are confident that with time it will get up to scratch. Currently I'm
> > refactoring it from stdlib to qt, to make it more accessibile to myself
> > and other developers for hacking.
> wow Hamish! rpp2 is just great :-) please Hamish rename it in rpp (or
> preprocessor?) and remove the old rpp code. We don't need crap-stl code now
> that we have *cute* Qt code ;-)
I don't think that porting from C++ containers to Qt containers is anything
but a waste of time. C++ coders are supposed to know standard, now decade+
old library that comes with C++. How porting it to a less-standard,
toolkit-specifit containers will make it more accessible is beyond me. Anyone
who codes in Qt is supposed to know C++, right?
I don't think that there's anything lacking in the C++ library documentation
nor implementation departments, so please tell me how moving from a container
library that's part of the language standard, and is built upon in numerous
boost extensions, to a container library that comes with Qt is good?
I'm amazed by the condensed "crap-stl" argument -- or rather, the lack of
it . . .
More information about the KDevelop-devel