[crossfire] C++/Qt server version

[Lalo Martins]

quoth Lauwenmark Akkendrittae as of Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:02:49 +0100:
> Le lundi 24 novembre 2008, Lalo Martins a écrit :
> I see two good reasons for Nicolas favouring Qt over Boost:
> 
> - He's more familiar with Qt, and having to learn another toolkit,
> especially something as complex as Boost, would be somewhat of a waste
> of time;

Agreed.

> - Although you mentioned several things that integrate nicely with
> Boost, providing Internationalization or a crossplatform building
> system, the whole point is that all of this is provided inside the Qt
> tool suite, and requires no external/3rd party dependency. This is a
> significant advantage to me.

That's true for ICU, but not Jam; Jam *is* part of the Boost tool suite.

> My own, personal tastes lean towards Qt more than Boost, mostly for the
> way Qt extended the C++ language to make some fundamental mechanisms
> more accessible. It provides a level of simplicity more in touch with
> the capabilities of my old braincells :).

Hmm... the same could be said for Boost, and the improvements in Boost 
are more likely to be in future versions of the C++ standard, since 
there's a huge overlap in membership between the C++ committee and the 
Boost project.  That's one of the main reasons I favour Boost.

Also, here's something I forgot before: would use Qt imply using 
Trolltech's bastard C++ dialect, and MOC?  Or is that already dead and 
outdated?  If we'll have to code in a C++ dialect and require a toolset 
that not many people will already have installed, then I'm strongly 
opposed to Qt.

best,
                                               Lalo Martins
-- 
      So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
       then they seem improbable, and then, when we
       summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
                           -----
                  http://lalomartins.info/
GNU: never give up freedom              http://www.gnu.org/