[Gllug] sid & kde3

Matt Amos matt.amos at ic.ac.uk
Tue Jul 2 08:50:57 UTC 2002

On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 05:24:34PM +0100, Nix wrote:
> >                                                    in contrast gnome 2.0 
> > is virtually impossible to compile from scratch and the dependancy hell 
> > requires a set of scripts to do the build for you!
> But it doesn't look as horrid as KDE, 

that is a matter of great opinion ;)

> and it doesn't use a demented
> distorted ugly broken dysfunctional core-dumping slow horrible
> preprocessor[1], and its C++ bindings are substantially nicer than KDE's
> (why oh why does Qt, even Qt 3, reinvent half the C++ standard library
> in a completely and totally half-assed way that shows their lack of
> understanding of anything the STL part of that library is about?)

iirc, the whole pre-preprocessor and non-compliant syntax in qt which 
tries to emulate the STL is an attempt to make qt more portable - 
trolltech didnt seem to think that there was a decent C++ implementation 
for most platforms.

> Pardon me. I don't like GNOME much, especially their apparent belief
> that all you need is CORBA bindings for something and you don't need to
> write bindings to any decent scripting languages at all, and Miguel's
> apparent desire to add everything that's most broken about Windows into
> Unix, but it's still a hell of a lot nicer than KDE, from the
> infrastructural point of view.[2]

which is probably why it takes as long to load a C++ KDE program as it 
does to load a CORBA-bound GNOME program.

> [1] I don't even like cpp: but there is *no* excuse for moc.

how could you not like cpp? its the very basis of code obfuscation 
competitions! ;)



"Only the educated are free." -- Epictetus

Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk

More information about the GLLUG mailing list