From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-12-12 20:22:38
Greg calmly elucidated:
> I don't doubt this is great stuff -- but is enough better than Qt to spend
> time on, or would be be better off leveraging that already popular and
> almost free work?
> For those who may not know, Qt is the C++ windowing toolkit underlying the
> Linux KDE desktop. See http://www.troll.no/qt/ and http://www.kde.org/.
Well, as far as boost is concerned, I think Qt is really inappropriate.
Instead of using namespaces they're using a Q prefix on all names. Instead
of using the standard library they're using their own collection classes.
Finally, it requires some sort of meta-object "compiler" outside of C++,
which I think generates C++ source code. We really do have all the tools we
need right here at home, I think.
An important feature of what I'm proposing is that it would be easily ported
to environments without an underlying windowing system (e.g. GGI, which
we've already got something working on). I don't think Qt fits this
description. Also, I don't think they really got the architecture right.
But ultimately, your question is a good one. Can we do something that is
enough better than existing work to be worth spending time on? I have not
been very impressed with the GUI toolkits I've seen out there. In contrast,
I've been very impressed with the work done "at" boost.org. I think we can
do much better. It remains to be seen whether the interest is there.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk