kentda / stud.ntnu.no wrote:


> I'm afraid I still mostly agree with Al Stevens on the critique of Qt. But
> I hope we can agree to disagree before I dig myself into a hole and end up
> sweating over C++ to prove points instead of nice Ruby code that I want to
> write...  ;-)


I e-mailed Al Stevens about this issue. I think that if the Qt framework,

which I don't know, specifies very clearly when ownership occurs, then there

is nothing conceptually wrong with such a design. I know that in 
Borland's C++ Builder, which I use extensively for C++ programming, that 
an ownership scheme occurs which is very easy to understand, and that of 
course using smart pointers in C++ ( std::auto_ptr<> and Boost smart 
pointers ) another type of ownership also occurs. As long as the 
ownership of objects ( or object pointers in C++ ) is easy to understand 
, I don't see anything objectionable about such a scheme. It did look 
like, in the case of Qt unfortunately, that the ownership scheme was not 
easy to understand but was quite abstruse.