On Wednesday 29 August 2012 04:28:54 Timothy Pearson wrote:
> > I suspect the KDE3 and Trinity camps could work together --- but the
> > proverbial olive branch is to strip the TQ interface from Trinity.
>
> From a technical perspective this would be a MAJOR, if not FATAL, step
> backward.  Once this is done we would relegate ourselves permanently to
> the back waters of desktop environments, solely because we will NEVER be
> able to be fully compatible with (or use internally) Qt4, Qt5, or any
> future Qt products.  Keep in mind that Qt4+ -based programs make up a
> large chunk of the halfway-decent new applications being generated for
> Linux, and that lack of proper integration between Qt4/TDE would likely
> prevent anyone from even trying TDE, let alone using it on a daily basis.

I don't understand this obsession for Qt4+ and KDE4. KDE4 is every time a step 
behind GNOME. For this reason I preffer to patch a little the Qt3 to support 
glib mainloop and then I will develop various applications based on excellent 
libraries provided by GNOME community. Moreover, glib integration is not 
broke Qt3 API, so I don't need to patch any of older KDE3 apps.


> If anything I would propose the opposite, that the KDE:KDE3 developers
> adopt the minor object renaming that is required to fix the Qt4
> compatibility problem and come work with us.  While the original
> tqtinterface was difficult to use and undocumented, the new TQt layer is
> nearly transparent and the oly visible change is the use of TQ* objects
> instead of Q* objects.  I routinely convert TQt3 code to Qt3 code using
> nothing but find+replace ("TQ"-->"Q" and "ntq"-->"q"), so the changes are
> not drastic.

Minor hack or no, it is ugly. Replacing strings automatically introduces a 
risk to make unwanted changes (which sometimes are translated in strange and 
hard to hunt bugs).

In any case, KDE3 will not dissapear so soon, my business is running on top of 
KDE3, so i'm forced to maintain it :)

-- 
Serghei