Just one more:
A brilliant developer knows how to make QObject subclasses available in scripts as both a return type and as an object.
Code:
var myObject = new MyObject; myObject = someOtherObject.getMyObject();
Ohh dear, is this difficult :-(
Printable View
Just one more:
A brilliant developer knows how to make QObject subclasses available in scripts as both a return type and as an object.
Code:
var myObject = new MyObject; myObject = someOtherObject.getMyObject();
Ohh dear, is this difficult :-(
So true. Infact one could say that only a good developer can react to those changes. In all of non-trivial software you are going to experience feedback from multiple sources, so your design and/or implementation will indeed change. A good programmer understands that no implementation is ever complete. A good programmer is never surprised. (Ok, I lie, but a good programmer is infinitely less prone to being surprised). A good programmer does not hold any given implementation sacred.Quote:
I don't think anyone has ever had a complete design of the application. Software is an organic thing. Not something you design, build and never touch again. Sometimes you have to start coding to get a feel for the right solution (prototyping, tracer-bullet programming and other buzz-words).
That's it for now.:D
Wanted to rant and figured this thread the most appropriate for it.
Does it seem to anyone else that Qt and how easy it appears to be (and indeed it is - you can have a trivial program with a UI up in moments with Creator) is drawing in the same crowd that suddenly appeared on the scene with the advent of Visual Basic? Anyone smell what I'm cooking? I understand that Qt and Creator have the goals of lowering the bar for entry into the design and implementation world, but good lord.
I'm not saying that all Visual Basic programmers are poor either. I've seen some rather impressive things done with it (it can call c and asm libs which totally unleashes the speed the applications are capable of). Hell, my first language was BASIC (which eventually lead me into assembly thanks to PEEK and POKE).
Hmm. Am I trying to say that RAD prior to education on programming is extremely detrimental? Maybe. What do you guys think?
I'd have to agree with you, people are downloading QtCreator and expecting to have an application up and running without first understanding how to program in C++. There seems a lot of "I don't want/don't have time to learn, just give me example code and I'll copy and paste". When it then doesn't work because they changed something major, they just post the outcome of the compiler and say something along the lines of "It doesn't work, fix it for me."
I don't know where the crowds come from. Obviously the general idea is that Qt is easy. Well, it is easy, but it is no walk in the park (it is compared to MFC development though). Anyone not willing to invest the time in learning C++ (or Python or any other language with Qt bindings) will come out disappointed. Shame really.
I don't think that is any of creator goals.Quote:
I understand that Qt and Creator have the goals of lowering the bar for entry into the design and implementation world, but good lord.
Its goal (IMHO) is to make coding easy and sensible for coders.
Yes guys, but that is not the fault of QtCreator.Quote:
I'd have to agree with you, people are downloading QtCreator and expecting to have an application up and running without first understanding how to program in C++.
Its the fault of the people who are not willing to learn C++.
These people were always there, and will always be there, nothing anyone can do about it.
Just because there are such people doesn't mean creator/designer should not be easy and make development a joy.
To me the reason of this is simple and it can be described by four letters - LGPL. Back "in the old days" your Qt application had to be either Open Source or you had to pay for a commercial licence. Now you can write a closed source app without paying which causes all those would-be programmers that stopped their self development at the level of writing scripts in Visual Basic to leverage the opportunity to earn some money writing commercial software and hoping that a good development environment (tools + frameworks) will make up for their lack of skills. The sad truth is that it won't. Qt is easy provided that you know C++ well. Many people tend to forget that.
Maybe we should restrict the 'script kiddies' to using PyQt. Python is a very good scripting language and for a would-be programmer easier to learn and use than C++. And the binding with Qt is very good. (Used it 5 years ago on a Linux system, guess it only got better by now, and guess Windows works also fine.)
Then we just have to give them 1 installer that puts Python+Qt+PyQt on their system in 1 step so we get no questions about that.
And then we need a script-kiddy detector in the forum :)
Best regards,
Marc
First of all we have no way of enforcing such a restriction. Second of all people not willing to learn C++ will not be willing to learn Python. According to me the path is education, not restriction. We've been discussing some ideas during Developer Days, we'll see if we can make anything happen. But this requires time.
nice thread
my simple thought:
I think that good developer will tend to reuse the code, when a bad one will just try to rewrite things from scratch. Bad developers likes to write their own code, and good devs know that sometimes it's even more important to read someone else's code and try to improve and reuse it. Bad developers thinks that code written from scratch will always be better than old one.
Good dev: "This function/class/system is a mess. Let's try to do some refactoring."
Bad dev: "This function/class/system is a mess. I will write my own."
Of course there can be situations when only thing left to do is to rewrite, but I think you know what I'm talking about.