[Qt] Serious problems with libqt4intf quality for Debian

Den Jean Den.Jean at telenet.be
Mon Nov 9 00:36:50 CET 2009

On Sunday 8 November  2009 17:22:36 Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Off-topic but still: yes, SMOKE does work on those platforms.
was not the case when the pascal binding was created.
> It'd be nice if these bindings were generated by SMOKE because that
> would make its maintenance easier both for upstream and for you.
big ? mark 

> SMOKE does a very good job, 
you need to have written a binding to understand
why so few bindings used smoke at that time

> it's faster than the official bindings
fast enough for a scripting language, 
it would be sad for a fast static language like FPC.

> Nokia is providing (QtScript, PySide). Take a look at
> http://www.kdedevelopers.org/blog/89 (and
> http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/4079 in particular).
> So, why do we not use SMOKE? Den, where are you? :-P
Why did PyQt, PySide,QtJambi, QtAda,QtC,QtScript .. etc not use smoke ?

I have seen many Qt bindings come and go. PerlQt3 used smoke,
why was it that years after the Qt4.0 release there was no PerlQt4 :-)

But a Pascal Smoke Qt 4 binding would be complementary,
though my binding fulfills its goals, a smoke binding would
be way more complete. I am looking forward to see your
results (and comment on the quality ;-) )

Understand that the other bindings try to provide a GUI
library to their language, whilst Lazarus already has one.
Providing Lazarus with a Qt backend (widgetset) is
something entirely different.


Den Jean 

More information about the Qt mailing list