Re: Appreciation / Financial support

[Tim Roberts]

Jeff Barnes wrote:
> While I'm sensitive to David's request to end the discussion for now, there 
> are some misconceptions about Qt that need addressing.

That's not entirely clear.  The discussion was originally about the
choice of Scheme as an extension language.  Qt is clearly not an answer
to that question.  In addition, Qt is not just a library, it is a
lifestyle.  You would have to throw everything out and start over.  It's
also not clear to me that Qt is a net win in an application that has a
console user interface.

> First, Qt is cross-platform and runnable on the above platforms and others as 
> well.

It has the additional benefit of being enormous.


> While Qt APIs are required, no new language is required. With Scheme and the 
> other extension strategies, both new API's and new languages are required.

In what way does Qt represent an "extension strategy"?


> I don't think Qt is a language of the moment, though.

Qt is not a language at all.  It is a library.


> I'm not sure he was being serious in adding Visual Basic to the mix, but 
> whether or not he was serious, comparing VB to Qt is disingenuous and 
> dismissive without a fair consideration. VB isn't cross platform. There are 
> also license differences and Qt is on the right side of that comparison. I 
> was a little surprised that someone with a GNU background like his would have 
> made those remarks.

VB is, at least, a language, and an embeddable one at that.  VB brings
with it the .NET Common Language Runtime, which IS more or less directly
comparable to Qt.  It is cross-platform (via Mono), although not to the
same degree that Qt is.

However, this debate is now taking a nasty side-trip into religion, and
that isn't going to help anyone.

-- 
Tim Roberts, address@hidden
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.