Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt 5.11.1 Released With 150+ Bug Fixes

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Again, Qt 5 is (or should be at this point, anyway) pretty mature. It's been available for 6 years, and new features aren't popping up as much. Too much software depends on it for devs to not be double-checking their work. Like you said, they're simply human, so mistakes are inevitable. I'm not expecting perfection, but to me, having over 150 bugs fixed sounds like a side effect of negligence, rather than just honest mistakes.

    I just checked the bug tracker for every open bug in Qt, and there are over 11,000. Meanwhile GTK has fewer than 1000 open bugs. I'm sure GTK3 is a smaller project, but I don't think it is over 11x smaller. As for Gstreamer, it is a smaller project (with a smaller and presumably under-funded dev team) but I would argue it is also more complex; they have around 2000 open bugs. That doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.

    It should also be pointed out that (to my knowledge), Qt 5 carried over a lot of code from Qt 4. Qt 4 was released in 2005, and yet modern Qt still still has this hefty pile of problems?


    Anyway, I like that they're making progress, but I hope they try being more careful about their code.




    GTK is roughly 10 times smaller than Qt. I would say that's close enough.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
      https://www.openhub.net/p/gtk



      GTK is roughly 10 times smaller than Qt. I would say that's close enough.
      Well then, I certainly can't argue with that. I guess that's checkmate.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
        based on the data available to me, I feel my opinion has some weight to it.
        Which is where you are wrong. You're way too distant from the amount of data that could make your statement even an educated guess.

        The fact that it has paid developers only strengthens my point - they should be more on-top of their bugs.
        Lol what? paid developers do what their company asks them to. If bugs are deemed low-priority (and there can be a ton of low-priority bugs), then the will be allocated to somewhere else.

        And yes, Qt does do a lot more, but number of bugs isn't inherently proportionate to number of features.
        Statistics have shown that human-generated code has a certain amount of bugs per line of code. Features (separate things like I mentioned) yeah, are additional code.

        Sure it can also have more bugs, but if a project is much bigger, then the smaller project has to be written by webdevelopers in the dark to have more bugs than that.

        Like I said before, I don't think GTK is 11x smaller than Qt (but, I'm not sure how to prove that, either).
        It's opensource, I'm sure you can figure out a way like looking at the number of lines of code, or something. EDIT Luke did it! Good, someone can apply science around here!

        Also to my knowledge, GTK also works with Weston. I'm not sure if it has a Weston-specific library, but apparently it doesn't need one.
        That's completely unrelated.

        Qt has its own Wayland compositor https://wiki.qt.io/QtWayland That's not "oh but it can run on Wayland using Weston". That's "Qt contains all the code necessary to implement a Wayland compositor on its own". I used that example to point out that Qt has significantly more features than GTK, it's not just a toolkit.

        I would like to clarify: I actually strongly prefer to use Qt over GTK. I think Qt is great. Really my only point is I'm not comfortable with the amount of known bugs they have.
        I'm just reacting to your baseless statements, I don't care about your affiliation.
        Last edited by starshipeleven; 19 June 2018, 03:55 PM.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
          Which is where you are wrong. You're way too distant from the amount of data that could make your statement even an educated guess.
          The only thing that was distant was knowing the actual size of the projects, which Luke_Wolf managed to point out, without being an asshole. Note how willingly I accepted being wrong in my response to him as a result. You have a tendency to whine about "baseless statements" but saying things like "you're wrong" without following up with specifics is objectively more baseless than the actual numbers I provided.
          Cut the crap and just provide facts. Leave your critiques, frustration, and self-analysis out of this. If you're so certain I'm wrong, all you need is sourced data and that's it. No other commentary is necessary.
          Lol what? paid developers do what their company asks them to. If bugs are deemed low-priority (and there can be a ton of low-priority bugs), then the will be allocated to somewhere else.
          I think you're missing the point... Paid developers are [supposed to be] more reliable in their work. Presumably, it is their primary job, which implies they should be proven skillful and more focused on accomplishing their objectives in a shorter timeframe. A typical volunteer developer only works on their project when they have the time to do so and may be a self-taught dev, leading to late or possibly improperly checked code.
          In other words, take the same project made by the same people in 2 different universes. In one universe, the devs are paid. In the other, they're volunteers. Which one do you think makes more progress? For the record, progress involves both new features and bug fixes.
          Statistics have shown that human-generated code has a certain amount of bugs per line of code.
          Please provide proof or else you're making a baseless claim.
          BTW, I know that generally speaking, more lines=more bugs, but considering how you're the one getting anal over petty details and opinions, generalizing isn't exactly going to work in your favor.


          You were doing so well lately. For roughly a full year, there were times we obviously had a disagreement, but you were at least objective and polite about it. You seemed to understand what was an opinion and what wasn't, and continued accordingly. I don't know what happened to you, but you need to relax. I pointed out my affiliation with Qt because I'm pretty confident you are reacting to me largely on an emotional level, and I wanted you to realize that despite my concerns, I don't dislike Qt.
          Last edited by schmidtbag; 19 June 2018, 03:58 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Yes, not all "bugs" are really bugs (some are wishes), not all bugs are equally important, not all bugs are equally treated, etc.:

            [From The CADT Model](http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html):

            In February 2003, a bunch of the outstanding bugs I'd reported against various GNOME programs over the previous couple of years were all closed as follows:

            Because of the release of GNOME 2.0 and 2.2, and the lack of interest in maintainership of GNOME 1.4, the gnome-core product is being closed. If you feel your bug is still of relevance to GNOME 2, please reopen it and refile it against a more appropriate component. Thanks...

            -- Jamie Zawinski (one of the founders of Netscape and Mozilla and all around well respected programmer, thanks to Kivada for reporting that).
            Last edited by Nth_man; 22 June 2018, 12:05 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X