• Lembot_0001@lemm.eedeleted by creator
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          il y a 1 an

          Because Qt still can’t get rid of that preprocessor abomination.

          • Jure Repinc@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            il y a 1 an

            What’s wrong with it? It is basically invisible and all done automatically in the background by the build system.

            • Lembot_0001@lemm.eedeleted by creator
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              il y a 1 an

              The very fact of its existence. I would like to see Qt as a normal library, not a C+±breaking “framework”.

              • Jure Repinc@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                il y a 1 an

                It does not break anything. Just uses C++ and builds upon it and improves it. And MOC comes in when some niceties are required that are hard to do with plain C++ (and be backwards compatible) or when more flexibility is required. If you know how to do it better, well Qt is free (as in freedom) and opensource and you can join the project and replace MOC with a better implementation. Until then it is a not so important detail and foolish to throw away entire Qt and all the numerous goodies and nice things that it brings just for this small detail.

                • Lembot_0001@lemm.eedeleted by creator
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  il y a 1 an

                  I don’t like the way how Qt “improves” C++. I don’t like moc. And I think that is enough reason to “throw away entire Qt”.