Sometimes the GPL is the ideal license. I write software for scientific purposes. I do work at the university. People should be able to understand how my results come into being and I want to keep it that way if anyone decides to extend my work. Please be so kind to recommend any other, more suitable, open source license, that guarantees that this knowledge remains open and accessible. I have found no other so far.
Some of your arguments sound like the arguments of a religious or political fanatic - sorry.
There is basically nothing left of my WoW guild. Just one player is still raiding. Most quit the game because of boredom and quite a few are interested in AION. WoW might not contain a "forced PvP" part, but it contains a "forced raid" part - either raid or you have almost nothing left to do.
I have spent the best part of the last 15 year developing experimental setups at evaluating the data. You don't need labview to do that. Example: Most beamlines at large X-ray site like the ESRF are controlled by open source command line software (SPEC). There are a few beamlines which are controlled by labview and people usually dislike this interface as to clumsy.
Most of the equipment we have at the university can either be interfaced via the serial port or the GPIB interface and you need Labview for neither of them. And I am not losing much time with my approach either.
When I am evaulating data I usually use Python, Gnuplot for the plotting and fitting and C/C++ if I need all the computational power I can get.
I also stay away from S....Plot, since it tends to crash in the most awkward moments. (I know what happend when I hear "SHIT" from my bosses office) This did not get better from release to release. The crashes and bugs just pop up in different places.
And the most important thing is: You know what is happening to your data if you program you evaluation yourself. I don't trust someones blackbox anymore, after I had too many bad experiences. Open Source is just the thing for science, since it can actually help other groups to verify and understand your data and evaluation.
The definition is (according to merriam-webster): The act or activity of providing pleasure or amusement especially for the public.
I was not of course not amused, but it was a pleasure watching it, since the storyline and the atmosphere are so dense. So imho, it is entertainment. I especially like BSG, since it draws a much darker picture than e.g. Star-Trek. I think that this is one of the strengths of the series. The characters are complex, sometimes guided by emotions, sometimes by rational thoughts. None of them is "the good" or "the bad", all of them are shades of gray. I for my part can much more identify myself with them than with the characters of other scifi series.
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
> The point was, that this problem is still there, as detailed in the mailing list posting, if you don't use Q_SIGNAL
You're complaining that the problem is there if the programmer chooses it to be there? How that a problem? Even if Qt removed the option to enable 'signal', a programmer could still "#define signal Q_SIGNAL" if they wanted, and thus 'polute' the namespace.
Ok, I tool my point probably too far. You are right, this solves the problem. But "signal:" is still the default mode and the better alternative is mentioned in the very last section of the very last version of the documentation on signals/slots and not really advertised as the solution one should use. Of course, this is only a problem of the documentation.
> why bother to construct the UI from an XML file during runtime?
Some programs allow the user to construct their own GUIs. Kontact does it, for example, as part of their exchange support. If you're not convinced - how about DBUS support?
DBus communication is an example of when you want to convert a string to an actual function.
Or scripting support - if you want to use a Qt object via javascript?
Its not really a question of being convinced or not. As I wrote: I never missed the feature. Ok, you provide me now with several examples why this is useful. ok. Btw.: Even in this case templates can be used for the signal mechanism (-> libglademm)
Ah yes,the old "I don't use this feature therefore it's useless".
Not really using a new feature is not really something I am guilty of. Blame me for not looking far enough into the software world, blame me for anything, but I am not guilty of that. Sorry, I probably was a bit upset about this statement. My fault.
(Btw, you realise that you're talking to two different people?)
no, sorry, it was late yesterday evening. - guilty
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
Anyway, those projects you point out were written before this announcement. I can fully understand the attraction of using an LGPL/BSD toolkit instead of a GPL one, and how it can outweigh many other factors.
True. Their choice might have been otherwise after the announcement. I have no idea why they chose GTKmm instead of Qt.
And for me, I have only very limited time to devote to my side business, and Qt enables me to make a viable, successful product with those very limited resources. To me that is critical, to others it is not.
If Qt offers basically everything you need and reduces both the development time and the dependencies to the absolutly necessary minimum, then every other solution is the worse choice. One has to earn money for a living.
Good night
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
Wrong. Just because it's mentioned on that page for the first time in 4.4 doesn't mean it was added in that version. It was added in 4.1 as shown in the release notes from Trolltech themselves:
Wrong in what way? Forgive me, if my comment was not as clear as it should have been, but I am not wrong in this case.
The point was, that this problem is still there, as detailed in the mailing list posting, if you don't use Q_SIGNAL, because you doubted the correctness of the mailing list posting. The point was not that it was added in 4.4 and not previously. You said that it was added in 4.1 and I am in no position to doubt that.
>> Even that is not that long ago and more than 4 year after the outdated mailinglist post you criticized.
Why are you so obsessed with timing? Who cares whether it was a problem in the past? You complained about namespace pollution, it's no longer an issue. Period.
I never said, that the problem is not solved. You told me so in your previous post and I don't doubt it. I don't care about the timing either. I just pointed out, that 4 years is a heck of long time to fix such a problem.
>> Never missed this feature
Ah yes,the old "I don't use this feature therefore it's useless".
Yeah, a really good answer. It there any better reason to use this? I won't use it just because it is there.
I am sorry, but I will not continue this discussion. This is slowly degenerating into a flamewar and I do not see any benefit for either of us if this continues. Have a nice evening.
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
Sure, Qt gives you an "All in One" toolkit. And I never said, that it does not have lots of features in the library. But if GTKMM is really as bad as you describe it, I wonder how e.g. Ardour (http://ardour.org/) or k-3d (http://www.k-3d.org/wiki/Main_Page) came into being (ok, Ardour does not support Windows, only Linux and Mac OS X). Sure, GTKMM might not offer you what you are looking for, but it still does for other people, who also develop professional software.
If you are a language purist who values that more than productivity, chose GTKMM.
Is therefore something of a slight exaggeration.
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
>> Does it use templates - no
Sure it does, all the collection classes are templated.
Sorry, my fault, I was not precise enough. Having only templated collection classes is hardly something to be proud of.
>> Does it use standard collections & iterators - no
True, although I like the api of the Qt collections much better than the std ones.
ok, personal choice.
>> The standard C++ string?
The standard C++ string class is horrible for GUI applications. It just sucks. No convenience functions, no unicode. Blah. Thank god for QString.
>> you cannot even construct a QString from a std::string without using c-strings
>> And it seems to have appeared in QT 4.4 (please correct me if I am wrong)
Actually it was first an option in Qt 4.1. Not sure of the exact date, probably early 2006.
Even that is not that long ago and more than 4 year after the outdated mailinglist post you criticized.
>> It basically a marketing page.
So.. what about the rest of the points on that page? Introspection and all that good stuff comes from moc.
I don't know what you exactly need, but this might be an option for you if you want Introspection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeid
The other major point on the page is creating connections to UI produced from XML files ("GUI is dynamic") I imho frankly don't see much point in doing this. The translations are not in the UI anyway, so why bother to construct the UI from an XML file during runtime? Never missed this feature and its no problem doing something like this with templates during compiletime.
I sure appreciate it a lot more than that warm fuzzy feeling of being more pure to the C++ language.
Please be more specific what other good stuff comes from moc and gives you a warm and fuzzy feeeling? I cannot get a warm and fuzzy feeling from programming C in C++.
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
> I don't really see the point in using a language, when you don't actually use pretty much anything of this language.
Templates are hardly the only feature of c++. Can't you make your point without completely over exaggerating everything?
Point taken, sorry, my fault, but I am not exaggerating everything.
A few examples:.) Does it use templates - no..) Does it use standard collections & iterators - no..) The standard C++ string? no, you cannot even construct a QString from a std::string without using c-strings..) Qt hardly uses any exceptions (apart from exceptions thrown by "new" and those are not QT exceptions).
No templates, no exceptions? So I think I am not that far from the truth. Nevertheless sorry for the exaggeration.
> especially when they pollute the main namespace.
You're linking to a post that is 7 years old? Qt lets you choose between using 'signals' or using Q_SIGNALS. KDE uses latter, specifically to avoid namespace problems.
It is still featured in the wikipedia entry about QT, and therefore still seems to be valid. Please correct the (german) wikipedia entry if you feel that this is not valid anymore. The english wikipedia entry boils basically down to the same conclusion.
Q_SIGNALS is a new name for the same old concept: C-macros. The advantage is of course, that it won't pollute the namespace anymore. And it seems to have appeared in QT 4.4 (please correct me if I am wrong), that means somewhere in Mai 2008. So that development is pretty recent and therefore not really something to be proud of.
> Moc is imho simply a hack for something the language can deliver itself by now.
I have read it all. And some things on this page are plain wrong: example: "Our approach goes far beyond anything you can do with templates. For example, we can have object properties. And we can have overloaded signals and slots, which feels natural when programming in a language where overloads are a key concept." It basically a marketing page.
Another big advantage that that link doesn't mention is scripting support. Qt binds very nicely to javascript, python, etc.
So does Gtk. You can wrap C++ templates with SWIG, but this is not the way templates are meant to be used and therefore more complicated. But it is possible.
C++ templates don't allow for introspection and calling functions based purely on a string name. (At least, afaik. Correct me if I'm wrong)
You are right, that is a shortcoming of C++. Meanwhile lots of compilers support "typeof". The library Boost.Typeof should also be able to help under certain circumstances. The question for me is: Do I really want to call a function based on a string name? I never came across a situation where I needed to do that. There were always more robust ways so solve the problem.
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
Wow, it might even take me less than 10 min to learn and I actually learned it, but I don't really see the point in using a language, when you don't actually use pretty much anything of this language. C++ has evolved, the basics of QT havn't. Perhaps nuissance is not the right word, perhaps annoyance is better, but Moc is imho simply a hack for something the language can deliver itself by now. Yeah, perhaps I am a C++ purist, but I seem to be not the only one who thinks that C-Macros should have very little place in a C++ program - especially when they pollute the main namespace. E.g. see http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/2002-08/thread00000-1.html
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
Because it forces me to program C++ in a way that is very unlike C++. If you read the comments on the QT homepage concerning templates you get the impression, that they wish C++ to be way more like Objective C or Java. There is lots you can do with C++ without the need for a metaobject compiler: class properties, signals, slots,... - just have a look at www.boost.org and see what is has to offer. Memory consumption is nowadays not really the issue anymore. (If you use KDE, you also use lots of the KDE libraries, which add a lot to the memory consumption.)
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
It sure has a good documentation and good RAD capabilities, but it still feels like C + Classes. I can understand why they did this back when they started with the toolkit: The capabilities of the C++ compilers were not what they are now. They should have updated the toolkit long ago to be a real C++ toolkit - every major version number is such an opportunity. I do programm C++ a lot and this baroque C++ is no fun.
And MOC is a major nuisance to me.
Re:It's good news, but is it too late?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
You are right that Qt uses very umm... baroque C++, but the fact is that it is a very good toolkit,...
What is worse: A C++ toolkit which tries to emulate C via a meta object compiler (we called it the precompiler in the good old days) or a C toolkit, which tries to emulate object oriented programming? Qt might be a good toolkit, but from the C++ point of view GTKMM is far better.
If more companies built stores in SL and sold real goods through it, if newspapers made virtual newsrooms where users could watch and read videos and articles, if other content owners made SL versions of their websites, there would be much much more to do.
In what way would a SL version of a XYZ be better than the standard internet presence of XYZ. I can watch Videos on Youtube, I can read articles on all websites. No one really need a virtual 3D environment for that. I don't need to see the books I shop at amazon.com in 3D. Where is the benefit of using SL (If you want to present a new car in a webshop use a flash plugin to enable a 360 degree view.)? How can watching a video or reading an article be better in SL than on a standard website?
My 2 cents are: It can't and therefore is not worth the overhead.
A competitor to second life, finally. Maybe this will expand awareness of SL and drive demand in virtual world development.
I don't see any need for something like second life - and so do all of the people who log in once and never come back again. It was nice, it was a novel idea, but its usefulness is very limited.
C# ist fine for UIs and for programming standard applications. If you need full control over what the program is doing or if you need the optimal speed without using assembler, then C# is not an option. And don't give me the "CIL code is as fast as C code" - it is not. I tried and came back to good old C.
And yes, the memory management in C or C++ is not as carefree as in C#, but e.g. all the new reference pointer templates in Boost help you a lot to make this as easy and as carefree as in C#.
Please read the following Blog entry:
http://blogs.gnome.org/mortenw/2008/02/02/themes-are-evil-part-ii/
It boils down to: Using a QT based theme engine resulted in a completely
different behaviour of the number handling of a GTK program. So the answer
might be in special cases: it is not that simple.
I don't know how this material is going to dissipate the engery, but a negative Poisson's ratio (and thus the reason for something getter fatter the more you strech it) is allowed in certain cases (example: isotropic material - the allowed Poisson's ratio goes from -1 to +0.5; materials with a Poisson's ratio > 0 are common, but materials with a Poisson's ratio 0 are well known e.g. certain foams) and this is not news.
Especially physicists (I am one myself) have a tendency to write unmaintainable code - because physics is all that matters and maintainability is of no importance. Who is going to look at the code tomorrow anyway? I have seen buggy bash scripts control AMS machines and fortran code, that was both impossible to understand and impossible to debug. OOP has nothing to do with the quality of the code itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the GPL is the ideal license. I write software for scientific purposes. I do work at the university. People should be able to understand how my results come into being and I want to keep it that way if anyone decides to extend my work. Please be so kind to recommend any other, more suitable, open source license, that guarantees that this knowledge remains open and accessible. I have found no other so far.
Some of your arguments sound like the arguments of a religious or political fanatic - sorry.
There is basically nothing left of my WoW guild. Just one player is still raiding. Most quit the game because of boredom and quite a few are interested in AION. WoW might not contain a "forced PvP" part, but it contains a "forced raid" part - either raid or you have almost nothing left to do.
So .... You don't have any needs? ;-)
I stand corrected, never looked at the site. But it is still pretty open compared to Labview.
I have spent the best part of the last 15 year developing experimental setups at evaluating the data. You don't need labview to do that. Example: Most beamlines at large X-ray site like the ESRF are controlled by open source command line software (SPEC). There are a few beamlines which are controlled by labview and people usually dislike this interface as to clumsy. Most of the equipment we have at the university can either be interfaced via the serial port or the GPIB interface and you need Labview for neither of them. And I am not losing much time with my approach either. When I am evaulating data I usually use Python, Gnuplot for the plotting and fitting and C/C++ if I need all the computational power I can get. I also stay away from S....Plot, since it tends to crash in the most awkward moments. (I know what happend when I hear "SHIT" from my bosses office) This did not get better from release to release. The crashes and bugs just pop up in different places. And the most important thing is: You know what is happening to your data if you program you evaluation yourself. I don't trust someones blackbox anymore, after I had too many bad experiences. Open Source is just the thing for science, since it can actually help other groups to verify and understand your data and evaluation.
The definition is (according to merriam-webster): The act or activity of providing pleasure or amusement especially for the public. I was not of course not amused, but it was a pleasure watching it, since the storyline and the atmosphere are so dense. So imho, it is entertainment. I especially like BSG, since it draws a much darker picture than e.g. Star-Trek. I think that this is one of the strengths of the series. The characters are complex, sometimes guided by emotions, sometimes by rational thoughts. None of them is "the good" or "the bad", all of them are shades of gray. I for my part can much more identify myself with them than with the characters of other scifi series.
> The point was, that this problem is still there, as detailed in the mailing list posting, if you don't use Q_SIGNAL
You're complaining that the problem is there if the programmer chooses it to be there? How that a problem? Even if Qt removed the option to enable 'signal', a programmer could still "#define signal Q_SIGNAL" if they wanted, and thus 'polute' the namespace.
Ok, I tool my point probably too far. You are right, this solves the problem. But "signal:" is still the default mode and the better alternative is mentioned in the very last section of the very last version of the documentation on signals/slots and not really advertised as the solution one should use. Of course, this is only a problem of the documentation.
> why bother to construct the UI from an XML file during runtime?
Some programs allow the user to construct their own GUIs. Kontact does it, for example, as part of their exchange support. If you're not convinced - how about DBUS support? DBus communication is an example of when you want to convert a string to an actual function. Or scripting support - if you want to use a Qt object via javascript?
Its not really a question of being convinced or not. As I wrote: I never missed the feature. Ok, you provide me now with several examples why this is useful. ok. Btw.: Even in this case templates can be used for the signal mechanism (-> libglademm)
Ah yes,the old "I don't use this feature therefore it's useless".
Not really using a new feature is not really something I am guilty of. Blame me for not looking far enough into the software world, blame me for anything, but I am not guilty of that. Sorry, I probably was a bit upset about this statement. My fault.
(Btw, you realise that you're talking to two different people?)
no, sorry, it was late yesterday evening. - guilty
Anyway, those projects you point out were written before this announcement. I can fully understand the attraction of using an LGPL/BSD toolkit instead of a GPL one, and how it can outweigh many other factors.
True. Their choice might have been otherwise after the announcement. I have no idea why they chose GTKmm instead of Qt.
And for me, I have only very limited time to devote to my side business, and Qt enables me to make a viable, successful product with those very limited resources. To me that is critical, to others it is not.
If Qt offers basically everything you need and reduces both the development time and the dependencies to the absolutly necessary minimum, then every other solution is the worse choice. One has to earn money for a living. Good night
>> You are really fun. It is true (at the end of the following page - and - hurray - its from trolltech): http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/signalsandslots.html [trolltech.com]
Wrong. Just because it's mentioned on that page for the first time in 4.4 doesn't mean it was added in that version. It was added in 4.1 as shown in the release notes from Trolltech themselves:
Wrong in what way? Forgive me, if my comment was not as clear as it should have been, but I am not wrong in this case. The point was, that this problem is still there, as detailed in the mailing list posting, if you don't use Q_SIGNAL, because you doubted the correctness of the mailing list posting. The point was not that it was added in 4.4 and not previously. You said that it was added in 4.1 and I am in no position to doubt that.
http://www.qtsoftware.com/developer/changes/changes-4.1.0
>> Even that is not that long ago and more than 4 year after the outdated mailinglist post you criticized.
Why are you so obsessed with timing? Who cares whether it was a problem in the past? You complained about namespace pollution, it's no longer an issue. Period.
I never said, that the problem is not solved. You told me so in your previous post and I don't doubt it. I don't care about the timing either. I just pointed out, that 4 years is a heck of long time to fix such a problem.
>> Never missed this feature
Ah yes,the old "I don't use this feature therefore it's useless".
Yeah, a really good answer. It there any better reason to use this? I won't use it just because it is there. I am sorry, but I will not continue this discussion. This is slowly degenerating into a flamewar and I do not see any benefit for either of us if this continues. Have a nice evening.
If you are a language purist who values that more than productivity, chose GTKMM.
Is therefore something of a slight exaggeration.
>> Does it use templates - no
Sure it does, all the collection classes are templated.
Sorry, my fault, I was not precise enough. Having only templated collection classes is hardly something to be proud of.
>> Does it use standard collections & iterators - no
True, although I like the api of the Qt collections much better than the std ones.
ok, personal choice.
>> The standard C++ string?
The standard C++ string class is horrible for GUI applications. It just sucks. No convenience functions, no unicode. Blah. Thank god for QString.
>> you cannot even construct a QString from a std::string without using c-strings
Sure you can: QString QString::fromStdString ( const std::string & str )
Ok, my bad, I only check the Constructors. What you say about UTF-8,.. is also true, since also GTKmm uses a different string class.
>> Qt hardly uses any exceptions
This one is true. I agree that in certain situations Qt should definitely add some exception support.
>>It is still featured in the wikipedia entry about QT, and therefore still seems to be valid.
Haha. Wikipedia says it so it must be true :)
You are really fun. It is true (at the end of the following page - and - hurray - its from trolltech): http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/signalsandslots.html
>> And it seems to have appeared in QT 4.4 (please correct me if I am wrong)
Actually it was first an option in Qt 4.1. Not sure of the exact date, probably early 2006.
Even that is not that long ago and more than 4 year after the outdated mailinglist post you criticized.
>> It basically a marketing page.
So.. what about the rest of the points on that page? Introspection and all that good stuff comes from moc.
I don't know what you exactly need, but this might be an option for you if you want Introspection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeid The other major point on the page is creating connections to UI produced from XML files ("GUI is dynamic") I imho frankly don't see much point in doing this. The translations are not in the UI anyway, so why bother to construct the UI from an XML file during runtime? Never missed this feature and its no problem doing something like this with templates during compiletime.
I sure appreciate it a lot more than that warm fuzzy feeling of being more pure to the C++ language.
Please be more specific what other good stuff comes from moc and gives you a warm and fuzzy feeeling? I cannot get a warm and fuzzy feeling from programming C in C++.
Have you ever used GTKMM? Why is it so "unproductive"? Are they http://www.gtkmm.org/commercial_support.shtml all wrong?
> I don't really see the point in using a language, when you don't actually use pretty much anything of this language.
Templates are hardly the only feature of c++. Can't you make your point without completely over exaggerating everything?
Point taken, sorry, my fault, but I am not exaggerating everything. A few examples: .) Does it use templates - no. .) Does it use standard collections & iterators - no. .) The standard C++ string? no, you cannot even construct a QString from a std::string without using c-strings. .) Qt hardly uses any exceptions (apart from exceptions thrown by "new" and those are not QT exceptions).
No templates, no exceptions? So I think I am not that far from the truth. Nevertheless sorry for the exaggeration.
> especially when they pollute the main namespace.
You're linking to a post that is 7 years old? Qt lets you choose between using 'signals' or using Q_SIGNALS. KDE uses latter, specifically to avoid namespace problems.
It is still featured in the wikipedia entry about QT, and therefore still seems to be valid. Please correct the (german) wikipedia entry if you feel that this is not valid anymore. The english wikipedia entry boils basically down to the same conclusion. Q_SIGNALS is a new name for the same old concept: C-macros. The advantage is of course, that it won't pollute the namespace anymore. And it seems to have appeared in QT 4.4 (please correct me if I am wrong), that means somewhere in Mai 2008. So that development is pretty recent and therefore not really something to be proud of.
> Moc is imho simply a hack for something the language can deliver itself by now.
Not at all. Read: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/templates.html
I have read it all. And some things on this page are plain wrong: example: "Our approach goes far beyond anything you can do with templates. For example, we can have object properties. And we can have overloaded signals and slots, which feels natural when programming in a language where overloads are a key concept." It basically a marketing page.
Another big advantage that that link doesn't mention is scripting support. Qt binds very nicely to javascript, python, etc.
So does Gtk. You can wrap C++ templates with SWIG, but this is not the way templates are meant to be used and therefore more complicated. But it is possible.
C++ templates don't allow for introspection and calling functions based purely on a string name. (At least, afaik. Correct me if I'm wrong)
You are right, that is a shortcoming of C++. Meanwhile lots of compilers support "typeof". The library Boost.Typeof should also be able to help under certain circumstances. The question for me is: Do I really want to call a function based on a string name? I never came across a situation where I needed to do that. There were always more robust ways so solve the problem.
Wow, it might even take me less than 10 min to learn and I actually learned it, but I don't really see the point in using a language, when you don't actually use pretty much anything of this language. C++ has evolved, the basics of QT havn't. Perhaps nuissance is not the right word, perhaps annoyance is better, but Moc is imho simply a hack for something the language can deliver itself by now. Yeah, perhaps I am a C++ purist, but I seem to be not the only one who thinks that C-Macros should have very little place in a C++ program - especially when they pollute the main namespace. E.g. see http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/2002-08/thread00000-1.html
Because it forces me to program C++ in a way that is very unlike C++. If you read the comments on the QT homepage concerning templates you get the impression, that they wish C++ to be way more like Objective C or Java. There is lots you can do with C++ without the need for a metaobject compiler: class properties, signals, slots, ... - just have a look at www.boost.org and see what is has to offer. Memory consumption is nowadays not really the issue anymore. (If you use KDE, you also use lots of the KDE libraries, which add a lot to the memory consumption.)
It sure has a good documentation and good RAD capabilities, but it still feels like C + Classes. I can understand why they did this back when they started with the toolkit: The capabilities of the C++ compilers were not what they are now. They should have updated the toolkit long ago to be a real C++ toolkit - every major version number is such an opportunity. I do programm C++ a lot and this baroque C++ is no fun. And MOC is a major nuisance to me.
You are right that Qt uses very umm... baroque C++, but the fact is that it is a very good toolkit,...
What is worse: A C++ toolkit which tries to emulate C via a meta object compiler (we called it the precompiler in the good old days) or a C toolkit, which tries to emulate object oriented programming? Qt might be a good toolkit, but from the C++ point of view GTKMM is far better.
If more companies built stores in SL and sold real goods through it, if newspapers made virtual newsrooms where users could watch and read videos and articles, if other content owners made SL versions of their websites, there would be much much more to do.
In what way would a SL version of a XYZ be better than the standard internet presence of XYZ. I can watch Videos on Youtube, I can read articles on all websites. No one really need a virtual 3D environment for that. I don't need to see the books I shop at amazon.com in 3D. Where is the benefit of using SL (If you want to present a new car in a webshop use a flash plugin to enable a 360 degree view.)? How can watching a video or reading an article be better in SL than on a standard website? My 2 cents are: It can't and therefore is not worth the overhead.
A competitor to second life, finally. Maybe this will expand awareness of SL and drive demand in virtual world development.
I don't see any need for something like second life - and so do all of the people who log in once and never come back again. It was nice, it was a novel idea, but its usefulness is very limited.
C# ist fine for UIs and for programming standard applications. If you need full control over what the program is doing or if you need the optimal speed without using assembler, then C# is not an option. And don't give me the "CIL code is as fast as C code" - it is not. I tried and came back to good old C.
And yes, the memory management in C or C++ is not as carefree as in C#, but e.g. all the new reference pointer templates in Boost help you a lot to make this as easy and as carefree as in C#.
Please read the following Blog entry: http://blogs.gnome.org/mortenw/2008/02/02/themes-are-evil-part-ii/ It boils down to: Using a QT based theme engine resulted in a completely different behaviour of the number handling of a GTK program. So the answer might be in special cases: it is not that simple.
I don't know how this material is going to dissipate the engery, but a negative Poisson's ratio (and thus the reason for something getter fatter the more you strech it) is allowed in certain cases (example: isotropic material - the allowed Poisson's ratio goes from -1 to +0.5; materials with a Poisson's ratio > 0 are common, but materials with a Poisson's ratio 0 are well known e.g. certain foams) and this is not news.
Especially physicists (I am one myself) have a tendency to write unmaintainable code - because physics is all that matters and maintainability is of no importance. Who is going to look at the code tomorrow anyway? I have seen buggy bash scripts control AMS machines and fortran code, that was both impossible to understand and impossible to debug. OOP has nothing to do with the quality of the code itself.