| Trolltech Home | Qt-interest Home | Recent Threads | All Threads | Author | Date | |
| All threads index page 1 | |
Quoting Pat <masottaus@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Whether or not you agree will depend on your situation > that's deeply true, we don't care at all about the 20% run time improvement > of the new compilers... we don't care at all about C++ standard > compliance... we care about run time available everywhere!! Actually "run time available everywhere" is not a reason to be stuck with VC++ 6.0. With VC++ 2003 (7.1) you just need to put the run-time DLLs in the same directory your binary is and it will work fine. It is also possible to do that with VC++ 2005 (8.0) but due to .manifest files it gets quite more complex and is unsupported by Microsoft. Or at least the recipe they give does not work us. I think Windows developers at my company ended up using Till Oliver Knoll's way, look at this thread for more information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/2007-10/thread00029-0.html >> I think it should be clear from my email address that I have nothing to do >> with MS Vista. > well you haven't got my irony... I'm a bit tired of people trying to justify > new versions of everything just because the old one is just too old and it > looks no cool anymore! Do you think that Windows Vista was a necessary > change from XP....???? > > > > "Chris Thompson" <cthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message > news:200712051138.16834.cthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> See: >> http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2002/11/18/everettcpp.html >> >> This article probably vastly understates the C++ compliance issues with >> Visual >> C++ 6.0. The optimisation advances are probably not worth the upgrade >> except >> in extremely performance-critical code (in which case you'd probably be >> looking at ICC anyway) but the C++ compliance issues along with some of >> the >> other helpful advances such as the 64-bit portability checks and stack >> checks >> are, in my opinion, well worth the upgrade. >> >> Whether or not you agree will depend on your situation. I find it hard to >> imagine writing modern C++ code and having to use Visual C++ 6.0, however. >> You may wish to remember that Visual C++ 2008 is due out shortly; I cannot >> speak as to whether that's a worthwhile upgrade. >> >> I think it should be clear from my email address that I have nothing to do >> with MS Vista. >> >> On December 5, 2007 10:23:26 am Pat wrote: >>> Do you really think that just better C++ standard compliance and >>> "advances >>> in optimization" >>> really deserve the effort involved in changing the whole 6.0 thing for >>> the >>> 7.1?? >>> please give me something better.... >>> >>> are you with the MS Vista team??? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Chris Thompson" <cthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message >>> news:200712051050.50340.cthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> > On December 5, 2007 09:41:59 am Pat wrote: >>> >> Visual Studio 6 support being dropped???? >>> >> >>> >> http://trolltech.com/developer/notes/supported_platforms >>> >> >>> >> I do not understand why?? >>> >> it's cheap and works very well for a lot of projects... >>> >> >>> >> I hope it's just a mistake... >>> > >>> > Visual Studio 6 has atrocious support for C++. You are doing yourself >>> > a >>> > massive disservice not upgrading to at least Visual C++ .Net 2003 aka >>> > VC++ 7.1 (not the half-step, .Net 2002, VC++ 7.0). >>> > >>> > Really, Visual C++ 6.0 was released almost ten years ago. It is well >>> > worth >>> > taking advantage of Microsoft's increased compliance with the C++ >>> > standard and advances in optimisation since that time. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with >>> > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. >>> > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with >>> "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. List archive and information: >>> http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with >> "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. >> List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ > > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > with "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ > > -- [ signature omitted ]
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 17:41:59 Pat wrote: > Visual Studio 6 support being dropped???? > > http://trolltech.com/developer/notes/supported_platforms > > I do not understand why?? > it's cheap and works very well for a lot of projects... Unfortunately, it does not work for many of our new projects. As listed in the page that you linked to, major new Qt 4.4 features (WebKit, Multimedia, Concurrent, advanced XML) will not be supported in VS 6.0. The reason for that is that it simply cannot compile the code. Existing code & feature set will continue to compile, at least for the 4.4 series. (I cannot promise for 4.5 or 4.6 -- we'll be sure to let everyone know with a year in advance) Already in Qt 4.3.3 we're having lots of trouble maintaining the code due to compiler internal errors. We're not doing this out of a whim: we're doing it because that compiler is just giving us headaches now. Supporting a 12-year-old compiler with lousy C++ standards compliance is very hard. We also have similar problems with other compilers in the Unix platform, but nothing as problematic as VS 6.0. As far as I understand, the main reason for using VS 6.0 is that the C runtimes are already pre-installed in any Windows version. So you don't need to ship it with your application, which would be the case with later versions. But, like other people have said: please upgrade to Visual Studio .NET 2003, 2005 or 2008. Even the Visual Studio Express (which is free) is ok. -- [ signature omitted ]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Well, I might understand QT development supporting one compiler could be harder than supporting other ones, but part of what we bought from Trolltech is just that; the compiler support (and it wasn't cheap) So far (after all the explanations) I cannot see on our side any valuable reason to perform the migration to a new compiler... >(WebKit, Multimedia, Concurrent, advanced XML) >will not be supported in VS 6.0. The reason for >that is that it simply cannot compile the code. The compiler cannot compile the code?? what do you mean?? when the compiler does not compile my code I just re-write my code until it does... I would really love to hear Trolltech is not dropping VS 6... Pat "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:200712052023.52090.thiago.macieira@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unfortunately, it does not work for many of our new projects. As listed in the page that you linked to, major new Qt 4.4 features (WebKit, Multimedia, Concurrent, advanced XML) will not be supported in VS 6.0. The reason for that is that it simply cannot compile the code. Existing code & feature set will continue to compile, at least for the 4.4 series. (I cannot promise for 4.5 or 4.6 -- we'll be sure to let everyone know with a year in advance) Already in Qt 4.3.3 we're having lots of trouble maintaining the code due to compiler internal errors. We're not doing this out of a whim: we're doing it because that compiler is just giving us headaches now. Supporting a 12-year-old compiler with lousy C++ standards compliance is very hard. We also have similar problems with other compilers in the Unix platform, but nothing as problematic as VS 6.0. As far as I understand, the main reason for using VS 6.0 is that the C runtimes are already pre-installed in any Windows version. So you don't need to ship it with your application, which would be the case with later versions. But, like other people have said: please upgrade to Visual Studio .NET 2003, 2005 or 2008. Even the Visual Studio Express (which is free) is ok. -- [ signature omitted ]
Visual C++ doesn't support some pretty important parts of C++ such as partial template specialisation. It certainly sounds like Thiago Macieira is telling you that they could not add some major new features to Qt 4.4 without making use of some of the features added to C++ in ISO/IEC 14882:1998 and which are not supported by Visual C++ 6. It's not so much that supporting Visual C++ 6 is harder, it's that it is not really possible. It is not always possible(*) to rewrite your code so that it compiles in older, non-conformant compilers. Take a look at Loki or Boost, for example. Much of that is simply not possible in Visual C++ 6. It's not a matter of rewriting it. If you are happy with Visual C++ 6 and Qt 4.3, it may be a reasonable alternative for you to simply not upgrade, either to a modern C++ compliant compiler or to newer versions of Qt. (*) Given that the C++ subset implemented in VC++ 6 is Turing-complete, it's theoretically possible, of course. But I challenge you to implement the Loki library without using partial template specialisation. C++ has advanced since the pre-ISO 14882:1998 days. On December 5, 2007 12:15:36 pm Pat wrote: > Well, I might understand QT development supporting one compiler could be > harder than supporting other ones, but part of what we bought from > Trolltech is just that; the compiler support (and it wasn't cheap) > So far (after all the explanations) I cannot see on our side any valuable > reason to perform the migration to a new compiler... > > >(WebKit, Multimedia, Concurrent, advanced XML) > >will not be supported in VS 6.0. The reason for > >that is that it simply cannot compile the code. > > The compiler cannot compile the code?? what do you mean?? > when the compiler does not compile my code I just re-write my code until it > does... > > I would really love to hear Trolltech is not dropping VS 6... > > Pat > > > > "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message > news:200712052023.52090.thiago.macieira@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Unfortunately, it does not work for many of our new projects. As listed in > the > page that you linked to, major new Qt 4.4 features (WebKit, Multimedia, > Concurrent, advanced XML) will not be supported in VS 6.0. The reason for > that is that it simply cannot compile the code. Existing code & feature set > will continue to compile, at least for the 4.4 series. (I cannot promise > for 4.5 or 4.6 -- we'll be sure to let everyone know with a year in > advance) > > Already in Qt 4.3.3 we're having lots of trouble maintaining the code due > to compiler internal errors. > > We're not doing this out of a whim: we're doing it because that compiler is > just giving us headaches now. Supporting a 12-year-old compiler with lousy > C++ standards compliance is very hard. We also have similar problems with > other compilers in the Unix platform, but nothing as problematic as VS 6.0. > > As far as I understand, the main reason for using VS 6.0 is that the C > runtimes are already pre-installed in any Windows version. So you don't > need to ship it with your application, which would be the case with later > versions. > > But, like other people have said: please upgrade to Visual Studio .NET > 2003, 2005 or 2008. Even the Visual Studio Express (which is free) is ok. -- [ signature omitted ]
> (*) Given that the C++ subset implemented in VC++ 6 is Turing-complete, > it's > theoretically possible, of course. But I challenge you to implement the > Loki > library without using partial template specialisation. C++ has advanced > since the pre-ISO 14882:1998 days. This is my point!! do not challenge me, I'm not writing QT; just challenge Trolltech to support VS 6.0. Pat "Chris Thompson" <cthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:200712051332.19663.cthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Visual C++ doesn't support some pretty important parts of C++ such as > partial > template specialisation. It certainly sounds like Thiago Macieira is > telling > you that they could not add some major new features to Qt 4.4 without > making > use of some of the features added to C++ in ISO/IEC 14882:1998 and which > are > not supported by Visual C++ 6. > > It's not so much that supporting Visual C++ 6 is harder, it's that it is > not > really possible. It is not always possible(*) to rewrite your code so > that > it compiles in older, non-conformant compilers. Take a look at Loki or > Boost, for example. Much of that is simply not possible in Visual C++ 6. > It's not a matter of rewriting it. > > If you are happy with Visual C++ 6 and Qt 4.3, it may be a reasonable > alternative for you to simply not upgrade, either to a modern C++ > compliant > compiler or to newer versions of Qt. > > > (*) Given that the C++ subset implemented in VC++ 6 is Turing-complete, > it's > theoretically possible, of course. But I challenge you to implement the > Loki > library without using partial template specialisation. C++ has advanced > since the pre-ISO 14882:1998 days. > > On December 5, 2007 12:15:36 pm Pat wrote: >> Well, I might understand QT development supporting one compiler could be >> harder than supporting other ones, but part of what we bought from >> Trolltech is just that; the compiler support (and it wasn't cheap) >> So far (after all the explanations) I cannot see on our side any valuable >> reason to perform the migration to a new compiler... >> >> >(WebKit, Multimedia, Concurrent, advanced XML) >> >will not be supported in VS 6.0. The reason for >> >that is that it simply cannot compile the code. >> >> The compiler cannot compile the code?? what do you mean?? >> when the compiler does not compile my code I just re-write my code until >> it >> does... >> >> I would really love to hear Trolltech is not dropping VS 6... >> >> Pat >> >> >> >> "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message >> news:200712052023.52090.thiago.macieira@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> Unfortunately, it does not work for many of our new projects. As listed >> in >> the >> page that you linked to, major new Qt 4.4 features (WebKit, Multimedia, >> Concurrent, advanced XML) will not be supported in VS 6.0. The reason for >> that is that it simply cannot compile the code. Existing code & feature >> set >> will continue to compile, at least for the 4.4 series. (I cannot promise >> for 4.5 or 4.6 -- we'll be sure to let everyone know with a year in >> advance) >> >> Already in Qt 4.3.3 we're having lots of trouble maintaining the code due >> to compiler internal errors. >> >> We're not doing this out of a whim: we're doing it because that compiler >> is >> just giving us headaches now. Supporting a 12-year-old compiler with >> lousy >> C++ standards compliance is very hard. We also have similar problems with >> other compilers in the Unix platform, but nothing as problematic as VS >> 6.0. >> >> As far as I understand, the main reason for using VS 6.0 is that the C >> runtimes are already pre-installed in any Windows version. So you don't >> need to ship it with your application, which would be the case with later >> versions. >> >> But, like other people have said: please upgrade to Visual Studio .NET >> 2003, 2005 or 2008. Even the Visual Studio Express (which is free) is ok. > > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ -- [ signature omitted ]
> I would really love to hear Trolltech is not dropping VS 6... Why are you so against upgrading your compiler, but so determined to upgrade Qt? VS6 will continue to work just fine with the existing versions of Qt. You just won't be able to use any of the newer functionality they're writing into the toolkit in new versions. Keep on using what you like. Caleb -- [ signature omitted ]
Why?? because thanks to QT we almost forgot about the compiler...that's why we want to update QT while upgrading a compiler is not an appealing option for us... "Caleb Tennis" <caleb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:57459.192.168.2.159.1196888466.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> I would really love to hear Trolltech is not dropping VS 6... > > Why are you so against upgrading your compiler, but so determined to > upgrade Qt? > > VS6 will continue to work just fine with the existing versions of Qt. You > just > won't be able to use any of the newer functionality they're writing into > the toolkit > in new versions. > > Keep on using what you like. > > Caleb > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ -- [ signature omitted ]
Pat wrote: >>(WebKit, Multimedia, Concurrent, advanced XML) >>will not be supported in VS 6.0. The reason for >>that is that it simply cannot compile the code. > >The compiler cannot compile the code?? what do you mean?? >when the compiler does not compile my code I just re-write my code until > it does... Webkit compiling on VS 6 is out of the question. The codebase is now 7 years old. Rewriting it from the scratch would be madness. So, the conclusion is that VS 6 cannot compile code that was started 7 years ago. That shows how good that compiler is... The codebase is also shared by several different integrators, including Apple on their Safari browser. Heavily modifying the codebase to support VS 6 would be a move completely blocked by other parties due to the potential for regressions, not to mention it would make the code less readable for them, for no apparent gain. The other three features are new code. But they rely heavily on templates, which is where VS 6 chokes. Nothing fancy like STL or Boost, but enough. To give you an idea of how difficult VS 6 support is, the developer working on Qt Concurrent spent 3 weeks trying to get it working and still could not achieve it (thankfully, he wasn't working fulltime doing that). >I would really love to hear Trolltech is not dropping VS 6... Please contact your sales representative and voice your opinion. Knowing how many of our customers rely on that old compiler will be a factor in making the decision. Let me also be clear: Qt 4.4.0 will support VS 6 on the existing code. So you will be able to upgrade to the 4.4.x and your application will continue to be built, benefiting from the improvements and some new features. You won't be able to make use of Webkit, Multimedia support, Concurrent, advanced XML in your new application. But since you're not using them now, you're not losing anything in the upgrade -- except opportunity. Qt 4.4.x will receive security updates until 4.6.0 is out (yes, 4.6.0, not 4.5.0), as well as be available for premium support if you cannot upgrade and really need a bugfix. We have not decided to drop support for VS 6 on the existing codebase. So you're safe for now. Like I said, when that decision is made, we'll announce with a year in advance so that you can make preparations if necessary. Finally, you have the source for Qt, both in the commercial and in the open source editions. -- [ signature omitted ]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Just out of curiosity... why do you really not "want" to upgrade? Is there a technical problem when upgrading to the newer compilers that your project encounters? "It's cheap and works well"... is not really good justification. Alas, I cannot build Qt with my copy of Borland Turbo C++ 1.0 either. If you could offer a more specific technical problem, perhaps the conversation would turn from one of belittling you for being backwards, to people trying to help you over a hurdle. For example, I recall some MFC related problems when I upgraded the compiler, and for a good while I kept Visual Studio 6.0 on my own system until I got past them. There are a lot of experienced people on this list who may be able to help you get more up to date. For my own logic, I'm having a hard time understanding why someone who doesn't care about better performance and features would care about upgrading their copy of Qt either... Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think there is something important you haven't mentioned yet. Richard On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Pat wrote: > Visual Studio 6 support being dropped???? > > http://trolltech.com/developer/notes/supported_platforms > > I do not understand why?? > it's cheap and works very well for a lot of projects... > > I hope it's just a mistake... > > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > with "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ > -- [ signature omitted ]
"Richard S. Wright Jr." <rwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:9BFA7A65-7748-4127-A964-B82BE4692390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Just out of curiosity... why do you really not "want" to upgrade? Is > there a technical problem when upgrading to the newer compilers that your > project encounters? > We write communication software, QT implements the pretty face but under the pretty face theres a lot of code that is hard to migrate, even part of that code we write is sold as developing tools... there are big markets out there that still work just with VC and VB 6.0 believe it or not.... > "It's cheap and works well"... is not really good justification. Alas, I > cannot build Qt with my copy of Borland Turbo C++ 1.0 either. If you > could offer a more specific technical problem, perhaps the conversation > would turn from one of belittling you for being backwards, to people > trying to help you over a hurdle. For example, I recall some MFC related > problems when I upgraded the compiler, and for a good while I kept Visual > Studio 6.0 on my own system until I got past them. There are a lot of > experienced people on this list who may be able to help you get more up > to date. > > For my own logic, I'm having a hard time understanding why someone who > doesn't care about better performance and features would care about > upgrading their copy of Qt either... Giving you the benefit of the > doubt, I think there is something important you haven't mentioned yet. > > Richard > I've already said that, we care about QT, thanks God we reach a point where we do not need to care about the compiler... > On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Pat wrote: > >> Visual Studio 6 support being dropped???? >> >> http://trolltech.com/developer/notes/supported_platforms >> >> I do not understand why?? >> it's cheap and works very well for a lot of projects... >> >> I hope it's just a mistake... >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with >> "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. >> List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ >> > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ -- [ signature omitted ]
> I've already said that, we care about QT, thanks God we reach a point > where > we do not need to care about the compiler... But that is such a simplistic view of SW development. Forget the run time improvement... Forget the smaller executable size. Forget the C++ compliance... What about the security enhancements? And realize, there are GCC versions that have been dropped through the years. VS6 support is being completely drop by MS soon as well. While I understand your reluctance to move forward, I think at somepoint every one must move forward. -- [ signature omitted ]
My idea is not to start a war here OK? I just gave our opinion. no more. We care about what make us make money... we do not make more money with a "better" run time we do not make more money with a "better" C++ standard compliance we do not make more money getting smaller executables... we do not make more money getting more secure executables... so far the only reason for getting the new compiler is because Trolltech decided so... well.... we are not very happy with that... Pat "Scott Aron Bloom" <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:7DB34253D57D2B47AEB656218FE6AAEF03B9D6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > I've already said that, we care about QT, thanks God we reach a point > where > we do not need to care about the compiler... But that is such a simplistic view of SW development. Forget the run time improvement... Forget the smaller executable size. Forget the C++ compliance... What about the security enhancements? And realize, there are GCC versions that have been dropped through the years. VS6 support is being completely drop by MS soon as well. While I understand your reluctance to move forward, I think at somepoint every one must move forward. -- [ signature omitted ]
Hi, I'm not out to start a war either, but I could not resist commenting. So, these are my 5cent. On Thursday 06 December 2007 00:58:18 Pat wrote: > My idea is not to start a war here OK? I just gave our opinion. no more. > > We care about what make us make money... Sure, we all want to make money, eh? > we do not make more money with a "better" run time We do. Better runtimes often means less debuging when sh*t hits the fan, and also prevent such things from hitting the fan in the first place. Look at it this way; we spend less time on strange runtime errors, thereby maximizing our potential income as we can focus on the "money-making" aspects of our business. > we do not make more money with a "better" C++ standard compliance We make more money with standard c++ compliance. When we enter projects of some magnitude, such things are demanded. Government (who pay the BIG $) and more and more of the industy now demand it. > we do not make more money getting smaller executables... We do. Developing for handheld units is getting more and more common. Getting your app to run on both desktop and some embedded/handheld gizmo _will_ enable you to dig into more pockets. > we do not make more money getting more secure executables... We do. If we get bad press because there is some strange security-flaw we'll get less customers, and less revenue. Not fun. Older compilers/toolkits etc are known to have serious security-issues. A smart thing to avoid. > so far the only reason for getting the new compiler is because Trolltech > decided so... In our opinion TT has been great at supporting ancient stuff, but it has to end somewhere. > well.... we are not very happy with that... > > Pat > -- [ signature omitted ]
Christopher you haven't got my point, you do not need to tell me about your business, if you already use VC "10" this is not your fight... Pat "Christopher Rasch-Olsen Raa" <christopher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:200712060215.00825.christopher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Hi, > > I'm not out to start a war either, but I could not resist commenting. So, > these are my 5cent. > > On Thursday 06 December 2007 00:58:18 Pat wrote: >> My idea is not to start a war here OK? I just gave our opinion. no more. >> >> We care about what make us make money... > > Sure, we all want to make money, eh? > >> we do not make more money with a "better" run time > > We do. Better runtimes often means less debuging when sh*t hits the fan, > and > also prevent such things from hitting the fan in the first place. Look at > it > this way; we spend less time on strange runtime errors, thereby maximizing > our potential income as we can focus on the "money-making" aspects of our > business. > >> we do not make more money with a "better" C++ standard compliance > > We make more money with standard c++ compliance. When we enter projects of > some magnitude, such things are demanded. Government (who pay the BIG $) > and > more and more of the industy now demand it. > >> we do not make more money getting smaller executables... > > We do. Developing for handheld units is getting more and more common. > Getting > your app to run on both desktop and some embedded/handheld gizmo _will_ > enable you to dig into more pockets. > >> we do not make more money getting more secure executables... > > We do. If we get bad press because there is some strange security-flaw > we'll > get less customers, and less revenue. Not fun. Older compilers/toolkits > etc > are known to have serious security-issues. A smart thing to avoid. > >> so far the only reason for getting the new compiler is because Trolltech >> decided so... > > In our opinion TT has been great at supporting ancient stuff, but it has > to > end somewhere. > >> well.... we are not very happy with that... >> >> Pat >> > > -- > Christopher > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ -- [ signature omitted ]
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:15:10AM -0700, Pat wrote: > Christopher > you haven't got my point, > you do not need to tell me about your business, if you already use VC "10" > this is not your fight... I'm not hearing a lot of interest in your business on this list, either. If you think you can convince TrollTech to keep supporting your compiler of choice indefinitely, take it up with them. Have you heard any voices of support from the community? No, because we generally think you're being unreasonable. If you can present a business case to TrollTech, do it, but stop whining in a public forum. We care as little about your business as you do about Christopher's. > Pat --Greg > "Christopher Rasch-Olsen Raa" <christopher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in > message news:200712060215.00825.christopher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Hi, > > > > I'm not out to start a war either, but I could not resist commenting. So, > > these are my 5cent. > > > > On Thursday 06 December 2007 00:58:18 Pat wrote: > >> My idea is not to start a war here OK? I just gave our opinion. no more. > >> > >> We care about what make us make money... > > > > Sure, we all want to make money, eh? > > > >> we do not make more money with a "better" run time > > > > We do. Better runtimes often means less debuging when sh*t hits the fan, > > and > > also prevent such things from hitting the fan in the first place. Look at > > it > > this way; we spend less time on strange runtime errors, thereby maximizing > > our potential income as we can focus on the "money-making" aspects of our > > business. > > > >> we do not make more money with a "better" C++ standard compliance > > > > We make more money with standard c++ compliance. When we enter projects of > > some magnitude, such things are demanded. Government (who pay the BIG $) > > and > > more and more of the industy now demand it. > > > >> we do not make more money getting smaller executables... > > > > We do. Developing for handheld units is getting more and more common. > > Getting > > your app to run on both desktop and some embedded/handheld gizmo _will_ > > enable you to dig into more pockets. > > > >> we do not make more money getting more secure executables... > > > > We do. If we get bad press because there is some strange security-flaw > > we'll > > get less customers, and less revenue. Not fun. Older compilers/toolkits > > etc > > are known to have serious security-issues. A smart thing to avoid. > > > >> so far the only reason for getting the new compiler is because Trolltech > >> decided so... > > > > In our opinion TT has been great at supporting ancient stuff, but it has > > to > > end somewhere. > > > >> well.... we are not very happy with that... > >> > >> Pat > >> > > > > -- > > Christopher > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with > > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ > > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ > > -- [ signature omitted ]