Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> I read some bits of it, and as a former maintainer of Gtk-- and now happy
> KDE/Qt user, I disagree with about every single point which was made in
> this article, which also contained mistakes (like, you can't delete a
> QObject yourself).

I'm no Qt wiz, so I've stepped on a few "gotchas" where Qt and the
widget-parent-ownership stuff deleted things. Which is how I read the
articles critique. "You new it, you delete it. Start what you finish.
Symmetry." And other somewhat esoteric fairly good programming advice,
which doesn't fit with the design of Qt, where parent widgets are rather
possesive. I used to be fond of ownership containers (i.e. new it, add
it, forget about it), but after chasing subtle destructor sequence bugs,
I've grown more sceptical. 


> I used to hate moc myself, but more than a year of using Qt professionally
> have changed my mind. moc is actually a very good thing.

I think its the "oh-great-yet-another-preprocessing-precompiling-stage"
that gets on my nerves. I'll agree that moc is a very practical thing,
when you're considering reality. (Dubious template support in compilers,
crossplatform problems etc.) But while a crutch is very practical, I
don't like to think of it as a good thing. 

All IMHO, f'course :-)

-- 
<[ Kent Dahl ]>================<[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]>
  )____(stud.techn.;ind.?k.data)||(softwareDeveloper.at(Trustix))_( 
 /"Opinions expressed are mine and not those of my Employer,      "\
( "the University, my girlfriend, stray cats, banana fruitflies,  " )
 \"nor the frontal lobe of my left cerebral hemisphere.           "/