'>Install Qt4 SDK
'>Start coding an application
'>Begin to learn about Qt4 innovations
Seriously, WHY haven't I been told about this?
GTK is a horrible experience for coders and sometimes for users and that's what that fucker Shuttlecocks keeps pushing for Linux. I think they need to make a less ricer Qt4 desktop environment instead.
>>6
Yeah, I accept that; but I would like an XFCE counterpart, so to say, for KDE.
Not that I'd not be willing to code such a thing, but not only would the project be unmanageable for me alone, but I simply don't know where to start with learning the know-how to developing a good desktop environment (of course, starting at components, like a dock, window manager, desktop, etc.)
>>10
Simple: When Qt4 hits a design issue, it finds a good way to solve it. Slots and Signals are a great way to make less code do more. The graphics toolkit is simple and fast, and contains enough widgets to do pretty much anything you want.
As a sidenote, Qt Creator is great, but Qt4 Designer still can't unlock the full potential of the XML-defined signals and slots. Editing the XML files yourself is possible.
I have an idea for an esoteric programming language.
It will be called BitFuck and will have bitshift operators for I/O, ambiguos syntax and will have lambdas. Also vectors and hashmaps.
Here's some example code:
template<int n>
struct f { enum { value = n * f<n-1>::value };};
template<>
struct f { enum { value = 1 };};
int main() {
cout << /* output with bitshift? who would ever think something so stupid! LOL */ f<f<3>::value+1<f<2>::value>::value; // I'm a genious, this shit is unreadable
}
C++ PROGRAMMERS ARE ALL RETARDS. I HATE
C++ PROGRAMMERS SO MUCH. I LOL AT HOW
THEY MAKE THINGS PRIVATE IN CLASSES BUT
THEY ARE CLASSES THAT THEY ARE JUST
USING THEMSELVES. STOP BEING A FAG.
DON T THEY TRUST THEMSELVES>??? OOOOH
I VE GOT TO PROTECT THE VARIABLSE.
FUCK U C++. IM A SUPER COOL PROGRAMMER
AND I CAN HANDLE HAVING ACCESS TO
EVERYTHING I AM USING. IF IM NOT MEANT
TO USE IT, I WONT. IM NOT SOME FAG THAT
CANT BE TRUSTED AND HAVE TO HAVE THE
PRIVACY ENFORCED. ENJOY YOUR WASTED
HOURS WRITING GET AND SET METHODS FAG
WHILE I M WRITING AMAZING CODE AND
HAVIN SEX WITH MODELS AND SNORTING
COCAINE OFF THEIR TITS. FUCK OFF.
Name:
commy!5laMGKpsGU2011-02-03 15:26
>>9
The thing is, it's impossibly to code in C++ effectively. Just like Perl, it's too flexible and lacks a coherent unified coding style, and thus encourages a divergence of standards and conventions that results in badly written code even from the most seasoned developers. It is a mistake of a past age that should be abandoned.
>>28
Sure, you can solve the problem somewhat if you are starting a project from scratch and gets to choose a convention and a set of libraries yourself. But that seldom happens. More often we join projects or review code or encounter code and libraries found throughout the world. That's when the weakness of C++ really shows. Unreadable code, unreadable code everywhere.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-03 16:09
>>28
That's a different issue. C++'s lack of coherence stems from the syntax and features of the language itself. C is very clean, whatever divergence of style is imposed upon it, not inherent in it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-03 16:38
Makes me laugh how the arguments against C++ generally boil down to "My coworkers use it wrong! Wahhhhhh!"
>>31
Same problems on different levels. The C++ syntax not being well defined just means you can make it mean what you want it to. When used well, it can end well. It can end poorly too.
The more power you give to the programmer, the more ability you're giving them to screw up. But ability to screw up doesn't equal a bad language.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-03 16:42
do not peep
Name:
commy!5laMGKpsGU2011-02-03 16:44
>>33
But how easy a language is to screw up is a a measure of how good a language is. Look at how far we've progressed, in the past we had C++ and Perl, and we learned from those mistakes. Now we have Java and Python, which are much cleaner and more difficult to screw up. We have learned that unnecessary flexibility is a detriment not an advantage, and designed new languages accordingly. Unfortunately these new languages aren't as fast as C++ so we are still stuck with it. At least Perl is being phased out.
>>35
The problems aren't as easy to solve with a language as low level as C++, so they haven't been. I'm not closed minded, but the other popular options don't fit in all cases where C++ would.
>>36
I doubt that's the case. C and Objective-C are as low level as C++ but have none of the ugliness. It shouldn't be difficult to design a proper low level OO language to replace C++, the problem is with it catching on.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-03 16:56
>>38
Plenty of new languages go up and down but few of them meet up to the hype.
C++ is partially ugly because it's efficient, mind you. A method call is no more than a this call (which, of course, passes the this pointer in a compiler dependent way... wish C++ would've standardized that.)
Java is a great example of why C++ being fast is a good thing. Obj C is fast too, but not as much.
>>33
HOLY SHIT! PROGRAMMERS CAN MAKE BAD CODE! NEWS AT 11!!!!
C++ IS BAD BECAUSE MY OPINION!!!!
A language doesn't make you a bad programmer. A bad programmer makes bad code, though, in any language. It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools.
It's like COBOL hate or Perl hate or whatever. Certain languages have their places in the universe, and you're not going to get someone to switch from one language to another because $LANGUAGE "sux0rs." Not gonna happen.
tl;dr These $LANGUAGE debates are like watching the Special Olympics.