Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.c++.moderated > #7382

Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++?

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/25/2016 11:26 AM, wij@totalbb.net.tw wrote:
>
> C++ says it is a system language but it's not true.
> C++ can't replace C. I don't think C++ is willing to cover those
> things C solved, even not for shell script!
>


> Nowadays most parts has gone farther away for 'high-end' application
> programmer's favor (let alone what that favor might really be), but
> remains not practical if compared to Qt(before version 4).
> So what's the problem with C++?
> It seems C++ can only be used as a base language for other languages.
>

I work for a company that develop telecommunication software. Our 
applications are multiplatform (Windows/Linux x86/x86_64 and Solaris 
Intel/Sparc). We mostly use standard C++/boost and some third party 
libraries. In any case we need/use QT, so IMO it all depends on the 
context/domain of your software. QT is a nice (and big) library but is 
not for all software.


Regards


-- 
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG


      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

Back to comp.lang.c++.moderated | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? wij@totalbb.net.tw - 2016-02-25 08:26 -0600
  Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Martin Bonner <martinfrompi@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-25 09:20 -0600
  Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2016-02-25 09:46 -0600
  Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-26 06:47 -0600
    Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? wij <wij@totalbb.net.tw> - 2016-03-02 06:34 -0600
      Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Martin Bonner <martinfrompi@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-02 11:07 -0600
        Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? wij@totalbb.net.tw - 2016-03-03 06:27 -0600
          Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-04 06:44 -0600
            Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? wij@totalbb.net.tw - 2016-03-05 06:58 -0600
      Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-03 06:27 -0600
        Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-03-04 11:01 -0600
          Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-05 06:57 -0600
  Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? wij@totalbb.net.tw - 2016-02-26 06:47 -0600
    Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-02-26 09:31 -0600
      Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-02-26 15:46 -0600
        Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-02-26 19:29 -0600
        Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-02-27 07:16 -0600
  Re: Isn't it better using Qt than the 'standerd' C++? Cholo Lennon <chololennon@this.is.invalid> - 2016-02-26 09:30 -0600

csiph-web