Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcelerier | Hacker News Reader

> Not Alan Key 10kSLOC for the entire universe good.

if this was enough that's what we'd use though, no ?

While I like this project, I don't use half of the features it mentions in the supported features, and I use half of the features with no support planned so it's not an option for me ; i'd wager anyone not making todo apps has different set of requirements which leads to something like Qt which comes with everything. Simple example: no scripting support means pretty much that it's unuseable for any technical app e.g. in CAD/CAM or similar. No SQL means that it's unuseable for any kind of enterprisey CRUD client app.

View on HN

> no scripting support ... No SQL

It's mostly about concentration of responsibilities, or as they say on Unix: "do one thing and do it well". Scripting support can easily be delegated to other projects (LeanQt inherits meta and introspection facilities of Qt which make dynamic bindings easy to accomplish, see e.g. this one for Lua: https://github.com/rochus-keller/NAF/tree/master/Script2); the same applies to database integration and other topics.

yes, and Qt SQL does one thing and does it well, which is getting SQL data in a format compatible with Qt's data model. You can do it by hand but you will just literally be reimplementing what is in QtSQL's module as soon as you want to display the result of queries in a table in your GUI. Same for scripting: the "meta and introspection facilities of Qt" are exactly what makes it possible to just call a member function or set a property of a C++ object from QJSEngine ; you can use another JS engine but you'll just end up reimplement all the glue code that is in QJSEngine, and for the sake of what? Having DLLs that start with another letter than Q?

> and Qt SQL does one thing and does it well

Well, that's not particularly what the Unix philosophy is up to, unless Qt Sql is a separate project.

> use another JS engine but you'll just end up reimplement all the glue code that is in QJSEngine

There is no necessity to have it in the same project. And there is still original Qt if you want to have it all.

I don't understand why being in the same or a separate project matters at all. It's an entirely theoretical thing. The only actual meaningful question is if it is in the same shared library or not (and it isn't). Your CPU does not care that function A comes from company A and function B from company A or B when executing, it'll be the same code.

See, I’d rather use Qt for the UI, rusqlite for data access, and Lua, Rhai, or an embedded JS engine for scripting.

Why, what is it going to bring you

Sounds like (based on this thread of comments) that you're arguing that this should be a framework, where all the boring stuff is already taken care of, for run-of-the-mill, enterprisey projects.

Some people are doing things that don't fit neatly in such frameworks, and when that happens, they're fighting against it rather than actually choosing what they want to code.

If it is so onerous that not having QtSQL is a deal killer, then it sounds like Qt has some weird problems with how it's API is designed preventing it from being flexible. Otherwise, if it it easy to load your own data in to Qt from whatever source, SQL or not, then not having QtSQL is fine, it just means an extra hour of coding and a little extra boilerplate, whoopdeedoo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com