Re: Visual Studio .NET 2003 port

> For the choice of 2.3 and 3.2 in the future I see the following facts 
> (and this is actually regarding 0.5 and is fairly unrelated to 0.4):
> - it's not even supported by trolltech anymore
> - it generally is not very rich on features
> - it's tedious to keep 2.3/current linux version in synch, since a lot 
> of stuff changes over the time and you have to implement a lot of small 
> annoying functions for the windows side that are actually already 
> existing in the current QT-API. (etc pp)

off topic: I finally found out what the p.p in etc. p.p. stands for:
perge perge!

> 
> Since we figured out the lincensing issues and came to the conclusion 
> that it is perfectly fine to redistribute the runtime files from the 
> book-cd, QT 3.2 seems like the perfect choice for the future.

I only agree 50%. Sure, 3.2 is much better than 2.3 and all, but it is still
not up to date (and always having to buy the newest qt book sucks ;)
So I would not call usng 3.2 "perfect". _If_ we should use qt in 0.5,
then 3.2 is definitely the best choice on windows. But it might be even
better to avoid qt alltogether...

Georg


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.