Re:Technical Vision for Qt 6
by jlarocco on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @12:46PM
(#20636408)
> This is visible when comparing PyQt and C++: yes, PyQt is easier to get into, has nicer syntax, but C++ offers more power.
That may be true for Python, but the Common Lisp bindings for Qt4 were equally as "powerful" as the C++ bindings. It had higher level abstractions that generally made it easier to read and write, as well.
> Bindings are not C++'s problem
Actually, bindings are a problem with C++. Some features (like templates) and implementation details (like name mangling) make it very difficult to create bindings to C++.
That may be true for Python, but the Common Lisp bindings for Qt4 were equally as "powerful" as the C++ bindings. It had higher level abstractions that generally made it easier to read and write, as well.
> Bindings are not C++'s problem
Actually, bindings are a problem with C++. Some features (like templates) and implementation details (like name mangling) make it very difficult to create bindings to C++.