Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Hat Makes Progress On Firefox Native For Wayland

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

  • Awesomeness
    replied
    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post

    But that would mean we're stuck using KDE. No thanks.
    LOL. No.
    You're an idiot.

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    "their ambitions to switch Firefox Workstation over to Wayland"

    WTF is "Firefox Workstation"? You mean maybe "Fedora Workstation"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post

    D anyone? No? Just Rust? k.
    D, Rust, Go, etc are going to be irrelevant until someone writes a (few) big open source projects in them that are seen as "cool".

    Leave a comment:


  • profoundWHALE
    replied
    Originally posted by goTouch View Post

    Yes, Rust is the hope. Everything has to be able to be called from Rust, if not in Rust already. C++ symbol mangling is difficult to deal with but hopefully once Rust learned how to do mangling it should be possible to call into C++.
    D anyone? No? Just Rust? k.

    Leave a comment:


  • goTouch
    replied
    Originally posted by Maxjen View Post
    According to this article it seems to be quite hard to write Rust bindings for Qt. But that was about a year ago. Maybe the situation has improved since then.
    Yes, Rust is the hope. Everything has to be able to be called from Rust, if not in Rust already. C++ symbol mangling is difficult to deal with but hopefully once Rust learned how to do mangling it should be possible to call into C++.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maxjen
    replied
    Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
    And people seem to have no problem making bindings / adaptations from Qt to Java, C#, Haskell, Python....
    According to this article it seems to be quite hard to write Rust bindings for Qt. But that was about a year ago. Maybe the situation has improved since then.

    Leave a comment:


  • justmy2cents
    replied
    Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post

    When writing software, the only "better" / "worse" measurement is the ease of use of the programming language.

    Also, https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt

    And people seem to have no problem making bindings / adaptations from Qt to Java, C#, Haskell, Python....
    and the ease of use for some language is defined by the problem you are solving, not the language. some problems are just more suited for OO, some not. that just says you're not at stage where you'd figure that out.

    going further with your claim C# is far better than C++. it is easier, it is far more flexible and presents you with less problems for your code to work

    i actually use both and both, so i don't know why you beat this horse. Qt and Gtk (prefer Gtk due to much cleaner API) and OO and non OO (prefer OO if possible, but some problems just aren't suited for it)

    as far as bindings go. i don't know for the rest, but i wouldn't mention C# in your claim. i really wanted to do some C# project in Qt because it would be more suitable to the software i was writing. but, C# and Qt is a disaster that never even started successfully. you had Qt sharp, which was never even remotely finished and was replaced/obsoleted by Kyoto, which again had more problems than actual working code and was replaced (with completely different, go figure) Qt-sharp where developers haven't even solved the website debacle to show the right project, way of providing something working.
    Last edited by justmy2cents; 18 July 2015, 09:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • doom_Oo7
    replied
    Originally posted by justmy2cents View Post
    - OO is just easier to code, not better, not worse
    When writing software, the only "better" / "worse" measurement is the ease of use of the programming language.

    Also, https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt

    And people seem to have no problem making bindings / adaptations from Qt to Java, C#, Haskell, Python....

    Leave a comment:


  • boxie
    replied
    Ahh - the great debate between C and C++ - where both might be wrong and neither are right!

    At the end of the day they are just 2 languages, the only "wrong" or "right" is whether they are the right tool for the job. The same thing goes for the gui libs of any language

    Leave a comment:


  • justmy2cents
    replied
    Originally posted by andre30correia View Post


    your opinion nothing more than that
    everything but my opinion on C++ is simple truth.
    - OO won't guarantee higher level of code. only in case where coder simply can't hack it. for n00b... OO is easier
    - OO won't guarantee faster execution. it is again dependent on coder
    - OO is just easier to code, not better, not worse
    - it is much harder to create bindings for other languages from C++ than C and if you're commenting on universal GUI lib, that is probably most important factor

    and the one part that is personal was specifying "while C++11 being decent, it is a matter of perspective. i find..."

    now, i'm not native english speaker, how would your comment and me saying it is a matter of perspective be any different? i actually stated that my self and translation would be "opinions differ, not everyone likes C++, not everyone hates it either"
    Last edited by justmy2cents; 17 July 2015, 06:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X