Re: [TCLUG:2858] Qt license debate: OVER

[Neal Tovsen <ntovsen@piper.hamline.edu>]

If C++ tends to bloat, what doesn't? I always thought that C/C++ were
about as un-bloated as you could get without going to assembly. Or are you
saying that C is much less unbloated than C++?

This is an honest question, as I'm ignorant on this issue. That's just
what I seem to remember hearing.

Neal

On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, John R Sheets wrote:

> Neal Tovsen wrote:
> > 
> > I seem to remember that there was some debate about Troll Tech's licensing
> > schema for the Qt libraries (used in KDE, and other stuff). Some people
> > didn't like the fact that though KDE was OpenSource, Qt wasn't. I seem to
> > remember that some said they were going Gnome primarily for this reason.
> 
> I wouldn't say primarily, although it was a strong factor.  They
> were also concerned that KDE was written entirely in C++ (my
> language of choice, incidentally), which makes it a lot harder to
> create bindings to other programming languages (name mangling,
> etc.).  This promise has paid off, with existing bindings to
> guile, perl, python, TOM, and yes, C++.  I'm probably missing a
> few.  Oh, Objective-C, too.
> 
> Add to that the WM agnosticism, a more flexible widget toolkit
> (GTK+ is now themable, down to the widget level), and a leaner
> implementation (sorry, C++ tends to bloat, and KDE doesn't seem
> to have bucked that trend).  Plus more.
> 
> All that said, I think KDE is a good thing.  I'll probably never
> use it, but I'm glad it's out there.
> 
> FYI, if anyone's interested, there's a pretty good technical
> article on GNOME, by one of the core developers, Miguel, at
> http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue35/icaza.html.
> 
> John
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help@listserv.real-time.com
> Try our website: http://tclug.real-time.com
> 
> 

			Neal Tovsen