Google Summer of Code 2006 Project proposals

[Hamish Rodda]

On Tuesday 25 April 2006 02:34, Kuba Ober wrote:
> 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?

C++, yes, but not necessarily stl.  If every kde developer was required to 
know stl, we certainly wouldn't have as many developers.  Roberto did this 
programming in stl so he could learn it better (iirc).

> 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?

A few reasons in this case:
1) The use of template classes made the code difficult to read
2) The use of iterators (in particular, the frequent copying and assignment of 
iterators) made it difficult to follow the program's logic
3) I was unable to locate bugs that had gone unfixed for some time with the 
old code

But the point is moot anyway, because Roberto had already given me his 
blessing to port it, and we're both much happier with the outcome.

kdevelop3 suffered from its c++ parser being only maintainable by a select 
small group of developers (basically just roberto + a few other small 
contributions iirc).  Anything which makes it easier for others to contribute 
is not a waste of time in my opinion (many kdevelop3 contributors will 
agree).  Thus, I will likely tackle kdevelop-pg at some point, to make it 
easier to implement those things that Roberto identified as being deficient.

Cheers,
Hamish.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20060425/c3b388e5/attachment.sig>