29 Aug
2012
29 Aug
'12
9:08 a.m.
On Wednesday 29 August 2012 04:28:54 Timothy Pearson wrote:
I don't understand this obsession for Qt4+ and KDE4. KDE4 is every time a step
behind GNOME. For this reason I preffer to patch a little the Qt3 to support
glib mainloop and then I will develop various applications based on excellent
libraries provided by GNOME community. Moreover, glib integration is not
broke Qt3 API, so I don't need to patch any of older KDE3 apps.
I suspect the
KDE3 and Trinity camps could work together --- but the
proverbial olive branch is to strip the TQ interface from Trinity.
From a technical perspective this would be a MAJOR, if not FATAL, step
backward. Once this is done we would relegate ourselves permanently to
the back waters of desktop environments, solely because we will NEVER be
able to be fully compatible with (or use internally) Qt4, Qt5, or any
future Qt products. Keep in mind that Qt4+ -based programs make up a
large chunk of the halfway-decent new applications being generated for
Linux, and that lack of proper integration between Qt4/TDE would likely
prevent anyone from even trying TDE, let alone using it on a daily basis. If anything I would propose the opposite, that the
KDE:KDE3 developers
adopt the minor object renaming that is required to fix the Qt4
compatibility problem and come work with us. While the original
tqtinterface was difficult to use and undocumented, the new TQt layer is
nearly transparent and the oly visible change is the use of TQ* objects
instead of Q* objects. I routinely convert TQt3 code to Qt3 code using
nothing but find+replace ("TQ"-->"Q" and
"ntq"-->"q"), so the changes are
not drastic.
Minor hack or no, it is ugly. Replacing strings automatically introduces a
risk to make unwanted changes (which sometimes are translated in strange and
hard to hunt bugs).
In any case, KDE3 will not dissapear so soon, my business is running on top of
KDE3, so i'm forced to maintain it :)
--
Serghei