Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt 5.3 Beta Released -- Improves Android, Adds WebSockets

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Abstraction is a compromise, not a goal. Qt are forced to do it extensively because they target every platform. That spells bloated jack of all platforms, master of none.
    It is the best toolkit on every single platform. And it's fully free software.

    So it's the master of all, really.

    Comment


    • #22
      Linux API versus POSIX-API

      Originally posted by gufide View Post
      Yeah! Multiple platform support enforce better abstraction and usually leads to a better code, and support to new display server like wayland become easier.
      You are right and the Linux kernel is probably the best proof for this claim!

      My point being: you still need platform-specific glue-code to support that platform.

      And my question being, whether Linux is suported by its own glue code, or whether it is supported by SUS/POSIX-glue code.

      If the latter, i.e. if there is no distinct suport for Linux, but only a shoddy POSIX-support, then Qt does not take any advanatge of stuff that is specific to the Linux kernel, like for example cgroups and fanotify. And there may be more stuff, that is present in Linux but it not present in POSIX, it is abstracted away...

      Comment


      • #23


        The GNU C Libary may be bloated due to "feature creep" , but the Linux kernel System Call Interface probably is not. It offers about 380 system calls, and any programmer should use the ones that perform best. If you program for POSIX, you might miss a couple. Abstraction is fine as long as you don't abstract away the good stuff. I am not arguing against POSIX, but for a distinct support for the Linux kernel, that is being developed by a couple of thousend good engineers around the world. I would wonder, wether all these people haven't come up with new ideas since 2008. Programming for POSIX-2008 or even POSIX-2001, well, does not look like programming for the things to come.

        Look mobile, and look at virtualization. Also look at the graphic support: hold back by X, then some mistakes with the DRI, hopefully DRI3 will prove potent and secure enough.

        Comment


        • #24
          Abstraction layers

          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          One thing to note is that Qt cannot really be compared to GTK+, as it's not only a GUI library. It comes with a platform abstraction layer that has no equivalent in GTK, or even in GLib.
          Hmmm. I hope Qt is not the new X, with own 2D drivers, own printer support, own bla...

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by toka View Post
            GLX-gear, Lines of codes and commit numbers are somewhat useless benchmarks. Yeah. Especially when comparing different programming laguages (C and C++).
            Still, I'd like to start a (civil) discussion about bloat.
            Then start by making an argument. Something that is actually a problem for you instead of just trolling.

            Comment


            • #26
              fishing in muddy waters versus trolling

              I am "fishing in muddy waters", please do not confuse that with trolling. On the basis of my questions, you should see that.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by toka View Post
                I am "fishing in muddy waters", please do not confuse that with trolling. On the basis of my questions, you should see that.
                Hmmm, I wonder if Qt causes cancer. It would be really bad if it caused cancer. And terrorism. And was written by Al Qaeda.

                I'm just "fishin", not saying anything...... *whistle*

                Thank you for your insightful comments, if only more users asked themselves outloud loaded questions and accusations without doing any checking.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by toka View Post
                  And my question being, whether Linux is suported by its own glue code, or whether it is supported by SUS/POSIX-glue code.

                  If the latter, i.e. if there is no distinct suport for Linux, but only a shoddy POSIX-support, then Qt does not take any advanatge of stuff that is specific to the Linux kernel, like for example cgroups and fanotify. And there may be more stuff, that is present in Linux but it not present in POSIX, it is abstracted away...
                  I know at the very least Qt is adding support for logging to the systemd journal, which is linux-specific.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    Thank you for your insightful comments, if only more users asked themselves outloud loaded questions and accusations without doing any checking.
                    How would I check for what I asked? Why shouldn't I ask here? Maybe somebody comes up with an good and helpful answer.
                    The stuff with the "abstraction layer" is good hint. Yes, I attacked it a bit, but I learned something new. Maybe the abstraction layer is a stupid approach, maybe it is not. Let us see, if somebody is motivated to write something regarding this. Or maybe I find something on google...

                    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                    I know at the very least Qt is adding support for logging to the systemd journal, which is linux-specific.
                    Yeah, that is good, but I am looking for the way Qt supports that many platforms. And I was asking myself, whether the support for the Linux "platform", i.e. the Linux API, is achieved through POSIX-API support or through a distinct support. I've written enough, let see if there are answers in this forum

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by toka View Post
                      Yeah, that is good, but I am looking for the way Qt supports that many platforms. And I was asking myself, whether the support for the Linux "platform", i.e. the Linux API, is achieved through POSIX-API support or through a distinct support. I've written enough, let see if there are answers in this forum
                      What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive? Linux is posix-compliant. What is wrong with supporting posix where it makes sense, and add support for Linux-specific bits only when it provides real advantages?

                      I provided an example of a case where Qt is supporting a Linux-specific API where it makes sense. How is that different from what you are asking for?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X