Kent Dahl wrote:

> 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."

Any mildly complex C++ program will bend of break this rule in one way or 
another. The "new it, delete it" rule isn't something you should enforce 
for the sake of it, it's an indication to help you making less mistakes. 

But if the language can get you rid of the burden of a stupid task (which 
it should in the first place), what's the problem ?

Ob-Ruby : would you prefer it if Ruby wasn't a GCed language ? Of course 
not. So there you have C++ turned into an "almost GCed" language... May be 
te "almost" can puzzle you, but frankly I'll take every bit of help I can 
get.

> 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 can't answer on this one, as I never had such problems with Qt.

> I think its the "oh-great-yet-another-preprocessing-precompiling-stage"
> that gets on my nerves.

In practice it's just a couple more lines in your Makefile (or you just 
don't see it at all if you use qmake or KDE's autoconf stuff).

> But while a crutch is very practical, I
> don't like to think of it as a good thing.

This is where you're wrong : it's not a crutch, it's a pair of jet-powered 
boots.

http://doc.trolltech.com/3.0/templates.html

Ob-Ruby again : what I liked in Ruby compared to Perl is that it uses plain 
words where Perl uses cryptic operators or constructions. Likewise, I 
prefer to see "slots" and "signal", rather than "some special template 
declaration". Beyond all standard compliance consideration, it's just plain 
more readable.

-- 
Guillaume
http://www.telegraph-road.org