I feel you. I don't like Pascal much these days either - I used to use Delphi for a long time back in the dark ages. That was absolutely fantastic, and I argue that we never got anything as good as that ever again. Lazarus is close.

Arguably I'd rather write stone age Pascal vs [hype web language], specially on the desktop platform, even if it means sacrificing niceties such as good IDE support.

> But Pascal is not only old, it is antiquated.

You mean it is tried and tested and stable? Pascal has continued to evolve just as its counterpart C does today (it's actually a branding problem that makes people think Pascal hasn't evolved at all - there has been upgrades made to Pascal, which were released under different names that has resulted in this misunderstanding). It still remains one of the few languages that can match the performance of C (or even outperform it) while feeling simpler than C.

I agree with you about Lazarus/Pascal, but Qt is C++, hardly an obsolete choice as far as languages go.

Well, I tend to disagree about this point. Qt is C++ as much as an ice cream truck is a truck - sure, it IS technically a truck, but that's where the similarities end. Qt basically reimplements every single C++ container and function with its own, has a slew of concepts that go directly against the current C++ trends (i.e. lots of pointers everywhere, CoW, ...), and on top of that it uses a preprocessor and also uses its own custom language to describe UIs (QML).

I am a professional C++ developer what happens to work often with Qt developers and I assure you, the skill-set you acquire while developing on Qt does not transfer at all to plain, standard C++, and vice-versa.

I wrote a Python+Qt peogram some years ago and since I actually like modern C++ a lot I've got started on a port, figuring it would be rather straightforward. It's been a bit disappointing because Qt basicallt requires you to write 'Qt-C++'. They made a lot of effort with their Python binding, boasting rightly so that it is quite pythonic.

What I would really like is a 'modern-C++-ic' binding for Qt.

C++ is not obsolete, but it is not a language I would ever want to write anything in for any period of time longer than a month. Not for a lack of trying both in and out of Qt and several combinations of the technology. QML with a little C++ was bearable for a while until it wasn't between the runtime not being Node, the lack of TypeScript integration, Qt designer crashing multiple times a day, the UI designer rendering nonsense, and still having to deal with C++ and its ecosystem.

The closest thing to something acceptable for non-trivial projects using Qt that I found was NodeGui. But as soon as I realized I had to make some very verbose C++ bindings to qtmultimedia all the energy for the project went away. If this one attempt with Gtk4 fails I might come back to that since it looks like it has matured since then.

How long ago did you look into Qt's Multimedia module on NodeGui? Also what part of it did you need?

1 year, 11 months ago if I go by the git commit logs. I had forgotten, but I see a few commits by a7ul himself. I remember now I had trouble getting the bare minimum for a plugin working and he helped me with that.

I needed QMediaPlayer support at least, since that's what I tried to start with. Probably that's all the program would still need.

> Rust and Relm4

Why not just design UI in Glade, then load it and bind handlers to UI elements?

Glade is Gtk3 only. I did download Cambalache, albeit merely for prototyping since I thought it was going to be easier than looking for GNOME Figma assets, but it is in too early of a state even for that.