Re: Tempting change..

On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 02:46:49PM -0500, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> On Sun, July 24, 2005 7:48 am, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> > So I'm thinking about Qt 4 Open Source

I feel strongly against this..


> plus... and especially in the case of gentoo users, installing Qt
> is a real pain...

..because Qt is so big.

[..]


> Qt is really really nice though :)

..probably, but it's so big.

I think it's (almost) OK for KDE to depend on Qt but I don't like
"Qt" and "server" in the same sentence. Oh, guess I just wrote that
already.. :)

Seriously, at least Qt 3 is huge, and unless there has been enormous
effort put into allowing Qt 4 to scale well downwards I don't think
it's a good idea for several reasons;

* ease of use (compile time, installation requirements)
* size (lines of code, security obviously)
* memory usage and speed (C++ is resource hungry, one bincimapd and
Qt per logged-in user => gigabytes worth of RAM.. (Yeahyeah, shared
objects..))

Agreed, most users may not self-compile, but please don't add this
dependency to the few of us that do.

Size, as I said, unless Qt4 is split up in lots of bits and pieces
adding Qt to bincimap(-up) exposes it to unauthenticated users on
the network.

Memory and speed ride on the previous point.


Which exact features in Qt are you longing for, Andreas? I guess it's
more than Unicode? Perhaps more light-weight alternatives can be
found?

I also understand the day-job factor. Since you know Qt so well it's
easy for you to see how it can be used to it's fullest potential and
since you work with it every day you don't consider it to be very
problematic. I would certainly also have the desire to use familiar
tools that I like in a more free environment than a business, but
again, please don't shove it down my throat, at least not without
first explaining how much FUD I've been spreading about Qt4. :)


//Peter