Re: RFS: libqtintf4
I got the following reply on your comments for the libqt4intf interface
library from Den Jean, a Qt4-Intf developer:
-------- Original Message --------
From: Den Jean <Den.Jean@telenet.be>
To: Items specific to the Qt widget set <email@example.com>
On Sunday 8 November 2009 17:22:36 Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Off-topic but still: yes, SMOKE does work on those platforms.
was not the case when the pascal binding was created.
> It'd be nice if these bindings were generated by SMOKE because that
> would make its maintenance easier both for upstream and for you.
big ? mark
> SMOKE does a very good job,
you need to have written a binding to understand
why so few bindings used smoke at that time
> it's faster than the official bindings
fast enough for a scripting language,
it would be sad for a fast static language like FPC.
> Nokia is providing (QtScript, PySide). Take a look at
> http://www.kdedevelopers.org/blog/89 (and
> http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/4079 in particular).
> So, why do we not use SMOKE? Den, where are you? :-P
Why did PyQt, PySide,QtJambi, QtAda,QtC,QtScript .. etc not use smoke ?
I have seen many Qt bindings come and go. PerlQt3 used smoke,
why was it that years after the Qt4.0 release there was no PerlQt4 :-)
But a Pascal Smoke Qt 4 binding would be complementary,
though my binding fulfills its goals, a smoke binding would
be way more complete. I am looking forward to see your
results (and comment on the quality ;-) )
Understand that the other bindings try to provide a GUI
library to their language, whilst Lazarus already has one.
Providing Lazarus with a Qt backend (widgetset) is
something entirely different.
So I don't see any blocks for this package. It is also impossible that all
Pascal developer switch to new SMOKE bindings within a week. I still wait
for a comment on the moc-files and the build-script issue. Maybe this can
be fixed for the Debian packaging.