Qt and basic types Re: C or C++ for FOSS/linux?

Ulrich.Teichert@xxxxxx wrote:

Besides, I don't really like Qt - not because it's bloated, for
which there are arguments, agreed, but because it reinvents the wheel
for basic types like strings (QString instead of STL-strings, for
instance). It does not make it faster as well.

AFAIK, the reason why Qt still ships with some classes which are equivalent
to STL's is that when Qt was first released there were some basic types
which not only weren't available in all platforms but also there weren't
any certainties that the implementations which could be present would all
be equivalent and behave the same way. So in order to avoid those
uncertanties (existence and behaviour) Qt's people just added their own.

Since then I believe that those problems no not matter anymore. Yet, the Qt
community had already written it's fair share of apps which used Qt's
classes. IMVHO it would be great if Qt4 removed each and every class which
is equivalent to any STL class but it seems that the people from Trolltech
don't see it that way, unfortunately.


Best regards
Rui Maciel
--
Running Kubuntu 6.10 with KDE 3.5.5 and proud of it.
jabber:rui_maciel@xxxxxxxxxx
.