> On the other hand, as a C++ library it really couldn't be worse, with its flagrant reinvention of the standard library, pervasive UTF16, complex object hierarchies, raw pointers, extensive use of macros, etc., etc.
Have you given Qt a serious try? Most of the above arguments don't hold good at all.
* c++ std lib is total crap. Anyone arguing for it has no idea what a good API is. Have you used Qt container? It's as intuitive as it gets. The C++ std lib is performance optimized and most desktop apps don't need it. It comes at a cost of developers having to learn complex APIs.
* Complex object hierarchies - huh? Qt's value based types need no memory management. The pointer types has a simple parent-child relationship. Delete the parent and all children are deleted as well. How hard is this?
* Raw pointers - Commented truly like someone who hasn't understood Qt.
* Why do you care about UTF16? It's an internal representation. BTW, Do you write any web apps? Do you know or care what internal representation is used by strings? If you some ultra-special case of a performance critical app, no string library out there will be good for you. You will have to roll out your own.
Let me guess. It really looks like you are one on the few guys who likes writing libraries (as opposed to apps). People who write apps love Qt. People who like writing libraries don't like any other library other than their own because their way is the true way.
There are many valid criticism of Qt but these are none of them.
Calling the C++ standard library crap is acknowledging the Wheel was Not Invented Here.
Glazing over the fact that Qt has an incredibly complicated object hierarchy by saying "they're good for you" is not acknowledging the fact that it's complicated and difficult to learn or work with. You didn't even mention, e.g., MOC - Qt's incredibly complicated Meta-Object Compiler. And people call GObject complicated...
Ignoring the fact that basically every other platform than Windows (and the platforms it has managed to infect) uses UTF-8 as its One True Encoding, and that you and Qt are proliferating the claim that every sufficiently complicated C++ project has its own string class with its own specific peculiarities is not a good thing.
Most importantly, you can't dismiss his concerns by agreeing that all of them exist and that he shouldn't care.
Not sure how you concluded this is about NIH. Qt's container are very developer friendly and as an application author that's the first and most important thing that matters.
Saying moc is complicated is like saying dalvik or ART is complicated. These are just tools that work in the background. Just like you don't need to know ART internals, you don't need to know moc or the code it generates for you.
Arguing about string encoding is so 1990's, I won't comment.
No offence, but you calling the STL "total crap" can lend others to claim you haven't given the STL a serious try as well. A related stackexchange question on critisms of the STL [1]
Have you given Qt a serious try? Most of the above arguments don't hold good at all. * c++ std lib is total crap. Anyone arguing for it has no idea what a good API is. Have you used Qt container? It's as intuitive as it gets. The C++ std lib is performance optimized and most desktop apps don't need it. It comes at a cost of developers having to learn complex APIs.
* Complex object hierarchies - huh? Qt's value based types need no memory management. The pointer types has a simple parent-child relationship. Delete the parent and all children are deleted as well. How hard is this?
* Raw pointers - Commented truly like someone who hasn't understood Qt.
* Why do you care about UTF16? It's an internal representation. BTW, Do you write any web apps? Do you know or care what internal representation is used by strings? If you some ultra-special case of a performance critical app, no string library out there will be good for you. You will have to roll out your own.
Let me guess. It really looks like you are one on the few guys who likes writing libraries (as opposed to apps). People who write apps love Qt. People who like writing libraries don't like any other library other than their own because their way is the true way.
There are many valid criticism of Qt but these are none of them.