Qt-interest Archive, December 2007
Visual Studio 6 support being dropped ??
Pages: Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
Message 31 in thread
Pat wrote:
> 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...
Trolltech do not make money by supporting thousands of obsolete compiler
tools either. Imagine the manpower required to retain support for one
particular compiler when they only have one or two customers using that
platform anymore.
You will find that you DO make money with better all of those things. A
better runtime and better standards compliance means that the software
contains less bugs beyond your control. Your developers are better able to
write standard code as they have always done without worrying about hacking
around VC6's woeful implementation of the C++ standard.
Smaller and more secure executables are a concern to many customers,
particularly in these days when almost every second program exposes some
major security flaw in Windows and Vista, itself, needs more memory than
available in a cluster of super computers.
> so far the only reason for getting the new compiler is because Trolltech
> decided so...
> well.... we are not very happy with that...
The trolls have decided that they need to make money too; the way they do
that is target the base that they think will buy their software. It's
unfortunate that you're stuck on a legacy platform, but at the end of the
day you should really consider upgrading.
VC6 was known to have some pretty serious bugs in its code generator last
time I looked. Do you really want to know that your software could
potentially keel over at any time because the compiler messed up and you
missed it in testing?
Cheers,
A
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 32 in thread
Not trying to perpetuate a war... But I got to say.. I'm glad I'm not
one of your customers or co-workers...
I understand limiting your compilers until you need to move.. But
running VC6 because you don't want to develop the same VB for current
active X schemes seems quite short sighted.
Not wanting run time improvements? Wow... I sure hope your app isn't
CPU intensive..
Not caring about C++ standards... Fine... no customer gain.. unless you
want to work on cutting edge applications.
Not caring about security in a communications application environment?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat [mailto:masottaus@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:58 PM
> To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Visual Studio 6 support being dropped ??
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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 ]
Message 33 in thread
please
everybody here sounds like rocket-scientist developing terribly complicated
application that need alien technology to be able to work, c'mon guys...
please stop the show ..
Pat
"Scott Aron Bloom" <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7DB34253D57D2B47AEB656218FE6AAEF03B9D9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not trying to perpetuate a war... But I got to say.. I'm glad I'm not
one of your customers or co-workers...
I understand limiting your compilers until you need to move.. But
running VC6 because you don't want to develop the same VB for current
active X schemes seems quite short sighted.
Not wanting run time improvements? Wow... I sure hope your app isn't
CPU intensive..
Not caring about C++ standards... Fine... no customer gain.. unless you
want to work on cutting edge applications.
Not caring about security in a communications application environment?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat [mailto:masottaus@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:58 PM
> To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Visual Studio 6 support being dropped ??
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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 ]
Message 34 in thread
On December 6, 2007 05:22:10 am Pat wrote:
> please
> everybody here sounds like rocket-scientist developing terribly complicated
> application that need alien technology to be able to work, c'mon guys...
> please stop the show ..
> Pat
Okay, I promised myself I wouldn't respond any further.
But really, you should order a copy of "Modern C++ Design" by Alexandrescu.
Really, it's not a particularly great title for the book, it should probably
be called, "Funky Things with Partial Template Specialisation". And the
truth of the matter is, there's a very good chance you'd never use anything
in there, even if you agreed it was cool. I'm not trying to convince you to
upgrade your compiler. But the book is well worth the price if only to show
you what can be done with some of the features added in C++98. Even if you
will never use them. I mean, it never hurts to know about additional
options.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 35 in thread
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...
>
> 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...
Wow. All I can say is THANK GOD you are not developing Apple software!
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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 ]
Message 36 in thread
On torsdag den 6. December 2007, Paul Miller wrote:
> 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...
> >
> > 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...
>
> Wow. All I can say is THANK GOD you are not developing Apple software!
Paul, come on. You usually make a lot better comments than this one. Pat is
actually very correct about his situation. If upgrading the compiler doesn't
make the product much better (and 20% faster for many applications doesn't
qualify) there won't be more revenue in it. Writing system software is
completely different, since it must be fast for those applications that
worries about those 20% more.
Pat, what you're forgetting is that Trolltech has to care for all of us. If
they keep VS6 compatibility, they hurt all of us who do not use it. If they
cut it, they hurt those who still use it. Also, the proper place to take your
arguments is to the Trolltech people. This is a public forum, not a trolltech
support list (apologies, if you already know this).
Trolltech is in a no-win situation here. Whatever they do, they will hurt some
of their customers. So far, they have chosen to keep VS6 compatibility, but
apparently they have decided that it's time to cut it.
Bo.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 37 in thread
"Bo Thorsen" <bo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:200712070935.55341.bo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On torsdag den 6. December 2007, Paul Miller wrote:
>> 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...
>> >
>> > 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...
>>
>> Wow. All I can say is THANK GOD you are not developing Apple software!
>
> Paul, come on. You usually make a lot better comments than this one. Pat
> is
> actually very correct about his situation. If upgrading the compiler
> doesn't
> make the product much better (and 20% faster for many applications doesn't
> qualify) there won't be more revenue in it.
"Making money" means "making profit", and revenue is only one part of the
equation. The other part is efficient use of resource (aka "cost"), and if
you have to constantly rewrite code and train new employees (that are used
to modern C++ constructs) in how to write code that is VC++6-conformant,
then this is not efficient use of resources at all.
20% faster code might not count for the customer, but tell your shareholders
that you have to invest 20% of your R&D resources in these kind of
value-less activities, and ask them what they think about upgrading your
compiler.
Volker
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 38 in thread
Bo Thorsen wrote:
> On torsdag den 6. December 2007, Paul Miller wrote:
>> 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...
>>>
>>> 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...
>> Wow. All I can say is THANK GOD you are not developing Apple software!
>
> Paul, come on. You usually make a lot better comments than this one. Pat is
> actually very correct about his situation. If upgrading the compiler doesn't
> make the product much better (and 20% faster for many applications doesn't
> qualify) there won't be more revenue in it. Writing system software is
> completely different, since it must be fast for those applications that
> worries about those 20% more.
My point was he wouldn't have had a choice a LONG time ago, and probably
would have been practically forced to switch compilers/port his code
MULTIPLE times by now.
Yet we all grin and bare it.
As for Windows, I agree the situation is FAR better. But I moved on to
.NET 2003 (and now .NET 2005) a couple of years ago and never looked
back. The dev environment is so much better, the compiler is orders of
magnitude better, and Qt integration is fantastic. I'm using Qt for
productivity reasons, and after making the transition I'm far more
productive with the 4.x series and VS2005. But, I develop apps for
multiple operating systems, and compiler compliance and access to
advanced template features are mission-critical to me.
In the end, I think Pat hasn't figured out yet he is working on legacy
stuff and the rest of the programming world has pretty much moved on,
and are happy for it.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 39 in thread
Paul Miller wrote in response to Pat:
> > so far the only reason for getting the new compiler is
> > because Trolltech decided so...
> > well.... we are not very happy with that...
>
> Wow. All I can say is THANK GOD you are not developing Apple software!
Hehe, this shows one of the strengths of Microsoft:
They've always been very good in supporting legacy software and making
people like Pat happy.
Ooops, did i just fuel a flame thread? But hey, it's friday ;-)
Cheers,
Peter
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 40 in thread
On 2007-12-07 06:09:02 -0500, "Peter Prade" <prade@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> Paul Miller wrote in response to Pat:
>>> so far the only reason for getting the new compiler is
>>> because Trolltech decided so...
>>> well.... we are not very happy with that...
>>
>> Wow. All I can say is THANK GOD you are not developing Apple software!
>
> Hehe, this shows one of the strengths of Microsoft:
> They've always been very good in supporting legacy software and making
> people like Pat happy.
>
> Ooops, did i just fuel a flame thread? But hey, it's friday ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
I'll add some more fuel.. Apple and supporting legacy code. Apple has
gone through a couple of transitions as of late:
m68K to PPC
PPC to Intel
OS 9 to OS X
In all cases Apple kept support for the older technology around for a
long time in the updated OS.
Mike
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 41 in thread
Ah... you are making VB controls using Visual Studio 6.0 then? I
remember those days as well ;-) That old ActiveX technology is indeed
very difficult to maintain with the later toolsets. This really isn't
so much a compiler problem as it is the nice wizards and tools on top
of the compiler are now gone.
Gluing newer and newer technology on an ever aging technology base...
while I have sympathy for your predicament, I am reminded of an old
proverb about putting new wine in old wine skins... The worst example
I ever saw of this was "screen scraping", were we would take ASCII
text from an AS 400 terminal and try and cram it into a Windows GUI.
There is indeed a lot of money to be made keeping some of these legacy
systems afloat. But at some point inevitably, the ever widening
technology gap is going to be too great to jump. Still, it looks like
you have a year or more before you find you can't glue Qt on top of VB
any longer.
Still... you may find that a creative (yet incredibly hacky) solution
might be to keep VC 6.0 and use it to create some "middleware" that
you then link to your VC 200x created Qt code. Create sort of a client-
server arrangement where your VB (or active X) glue server is done
with VC 6.0, and the client (higher level) code is done with the newer
Qt goodness.
Richard
On Dec 5, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Pat wrote:
>
> "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/
>
>
> --
> 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 ]
Message 42 in thread
"Richard S. Wright Jr." <rwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:727E8372-35B6-4414-8BEE-4FCA907BF20D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ah... you are making VB controls using Visual Studio 6.0 then? I
> remember those days as well ;-) That old ActiveX technology is indeed
> very difficult to maintain with the later toolsets. This really isn't so
> much a compiler problem as it is the nice wizards and tools on top of the
> compiler are now gone.
>
we just develop interface dlls that are called from VC or VB but no ActiveX
technology...
> Gluing newer and newer technology on an ever aging technology base...
> while I have sympathy for your predicament, I am reminded of an old
> proverb about putting new wine in old wine skins... The worst example I
> ever saw of this was "screen scraping", were we would take ASCII text
> from an AS 400 terminal and try and cram it into a Windows GUI. There is
> indeed a lot of money to be made keeping some of these legacy systems
> afloat. But at some point inevitably, the ever widening technology gap is
> going to be too great to jump. Still, it looks like you have a year or
> more before you find you can't glue Qt on top of VB any longer.
>
> Still... you may find that a creative (yet incredibly hacky) solution
> might be to keep VC 6.0 and use it to create some "middleware" that you
> then link to your VC 200x created Qt code. Create sort of a client- server
> arrangement where your VB (or active X) glue server is done with VC 6.0,
> and the client (higher level) code is done with the newer Qt goodness.
my friend, I really hope to come up with some easier way...
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 43 in thread
I've been using Visual C++ since the 16-bit days. Other than the 16 to
32 bit transition, most of my upgrading problems have been related to
other libraries (such as MFC, or Active X stuff). My C/C++ has always
come along with only an hours worth or tweaking, and usually it was
things I was shocked to find I was getting away with.
You still have not answered my question about what you are doing that
would cause incompatibilities with a newer compiler (perhaps you don't
know, but are simply afraid of the potential trouble). If you are just
looking to vent, you are on the wrong mailing list. If you are looking
for a solution... I have asked you three times what it is about the VC+
+ 6.0 compiler that you think you can't do without. I really don't
think you are looking for a solution, and I have other matters to
attend to.
We care about new features in Qt that we pay $$$$ every year to get.
Trolltech do not make money restricting their feature set to a 10 year
old version of C++.
I am sorry that you do not understand that, but it appears there is
nothing any of us can do about it.
Richard
On Dec 5, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Pat wrote:
>
> "Richard S. Wright Jr." <rwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message
> news:727E8372-35B6-4414-8BEE-4FCA907BF20D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Ah... you are making VB controls using Visual Studio 6.0 then? I
>> remember those days as well ;-) That old ActiveX technology is indeed
>> very difficult to maintain with the later toolsets. This really
>> isn't so
>> much a compiler problem as it is the nice wizards and tools on top
>> of the
>> compiler are now gone.
>>
>
> we just develop interface dlls that are called from VC or VB but no
> ActiveX
> technology...
>
>> Gluing newer and newer technology on an ever aging technology base...
>> while I have sympathy for your predicament, I am reminded of an old
>> proverb about putting new wine in old wine skins... The worst
>> example I
>> ever saw of this was "screen scraping", were we would take ASCII
>> text
>> from an AS 400 terminal and try and cram it into a Windows GUI.
>> There is
>> indeed a lot of money to be made keeping some of these legacy
>> systems
>> afloat. But at some point inevitably, the ever widening technology
>> gap is
>> going to be too great to jump. Still, it looks like you have a
>> year or
>> more before you find you can't glue Qt on top of VB any longer.
>>
>> Still... you may find that a creative (yet incredibly hacky) solution
>> might be to keep VC 6.0 and use it to create some "middleware"
>> that you
>> then link to your VC 200x created Qt code. Create sort of a client-
>> server
>> arrangement where your VB (or active X) glue server is done with
>> VC 6.0,
>> and the client (higher level) code is done with the newer Qt
>> goodness.
>
> my friend, I really hope to come up with some easier way...
>
>
> --
> 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 ]
Message 44 in thread
On 2007-12-05 19:07:38 -0500, "Pat" <masottaus@xxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> "Richard S. Wright Jr." <rwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:727E8372-35B6-4414-8BEE-4FCA907BF20D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Ah... you are making VB controls using Visual Studio 6.0 then? I
>> remember those days as well ;-) That old ActiveX technology is indeed
>> very difficult to maintain with the later toolsets. This really isn't so
>> much a compiler problem as it is the nice wizards and tools on top of the
>> compiler are now gone.
>>
>
> we just develop interface dlls that are called from VC or VB but no ActiveX
> technology...
>
>> Gluing newer and newer technology on an ever aging technology base...
>> while I have sympathy for your predicament, I am reminded of an old
>> proverb about putting new wine in old wine skins... The worst example I
>> ever saw of this was "screen scraping", were we would take ASCII text
>> from an AS 400 terminal and try and cram it into a Windows GUI. There is
>> indeed a lot of money to be made keeping some of these legacy systems
>> afloat. But at some point inevitably, the ever widening technology gap is
>> going to be too great to jump. Still, it looks like you have a year or
>> more before you find you can't glue Qt on top of VB any longer.
>>
>> Still... you may find that a creative (yet incredibly hacky) solution
>> might be to keep VC 6.0 and use it to create some "middleware" that you
>> then link to your VC 200x created Qt code. Create sort of a client- server
>> arrangement where your VB (or active X) glue server is done with VC 6.0,
>> and the client (higher level) code is done with the newer Qt goodness.
>
> my friend, I really hope to come up with some easier way...
Pat,
Is there some feature in the newer version of Qt that you _need_?
Just because Trolltech is dropping support for VC6 doesn't mean that
your current version of Qt will suddenly stop working. Your argument
just does not make sense. Maybe you should state just what _new_
feature unavailable to you currently you _will_ need in the future that
will not be supported?
Mike
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 45 in thread
As mentioned by others earlier, noone is forcing you to use the new features in the new versions of Qt.
If the version of Qt you're using today is working, then stick with it.
It's what's know as a trade-off.
Cheers :)
--
[ signature omitted ]
Pages: Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
