Kent Dahl wrote:

> It shook the safe choice of KDE/Qt abit under me, and reinforced several
> of my "grudges" against Qt. (MOC, need I say more?)

I scanned the intro...

<off-topic>

Yes, "Signals and Slots" is a Design Pattern unto itself, but MOC is a 
hack. http://www.boost.org can, for example, bond C++ to Python entirely 
inside the language using C++'s version of reflection. No big tables 
detailing the arguments to every function - boost just "sees" them. No SWIG.

But Qt is a commercial effort, so TrollTech could not dabble in science, 
they had to patch the language their way, with a preprocessor adding the 
feature they thought they needed.

</off-topic>

> Oh, for the record, I'm a KDE-user too, but perhaps more because I like
> to think of it as the "Kent Dahl Environment" rather than the "K Desktop
> Environment". 8^)

Yay! 

Next question - which desktop bonds to Ruby better - Ruby-Gtk, or Ruby-Qt? 
Is there any such thing as the latter??

-- 
Phlip

http://www.greencheese.org/LucidScheming