Sometimes the GPL is the ideal license. I write software for scientific purposes. I do work at the university. People should be able to understand how my results come into being and I want to keep it that way if anyone decides to extend my work. Please be so kind to recommend any other, more suitable, open source license, that guarantees that this knowledge remains open and accessible. I have found no other so far.

Some of your arguments sound like the arguments of a religious or political fanatic - sorry.

There is basically nothing left of my WoW guild. Just one player is still raiding. Most quit the game because of boredom and quite a few are interested in AION. WoW might not contain a "forced PvP" part, but it contains a "forced raid" part - either raid or you have almost nothing left to do.

So .... You don't have any needs? ;-)

I stand corrected, never looked at the site. But it is still pretty open compared to Labview.

I have spent the best part of the last 15 year developing experimental setups at evaluating the data. You don't need labview to do that. Example: Most beamlines at large X-ray site like the ESRF are controlled by open source command line software (SPEC). There are a few beamlines which are controlled by labview and people usually dislike this interface as to clumsy. Most of the equipment we have at the university can either be interfaced via the serial port or the GPIB interface and you need Labview for neither of them. And I am not losing much time with my approach either. When I am evaulating data I usually use Python, Gnuplot for the plotting and fitting and C/C++ if I need all the computational power I can get. I also stay away from S....Plot, since it tends to crash in the most awkward moments. (I know what happend when I hear "SHIT" from my bosses office) This did not get better from release to release. The crashes and bugs just pop up in different places. And the most important thing is: You know what is happening to your data if you program you evaluation yourself. I don't trust someones blackbox anymore, after I had too many bad experiences. Open Source is just the thing for science, since it can actually help other groups to verify and understand your data and evaluation.

The definition is (according to merriam-webster): The act or activity of providing pleasure or amusement especially for the public. I was not of course not amused, but it was a pleasure watching it, since the storyline and the atmosphere are so dense. So imho, it is entertainment. I especially like BSG, since it draws a much darker picture than e.g. Star-Trek. I think that this is one of the strengths of the series. The characters are complex, sometimes guided by emotions, sometimes by rational thoughts. None of them is "the good" or "the bad", all of them are shades of gray. I for my part can much more identify myself with them than with the characters of other scifi series.

Ok, I tool my point probably too far. You are right, this solves the problem. But "signal:" is still the default mode and the better alternative is mentioned in the very last section of the very last version of the documentation on signals/slots and not really advertised as the solution one should use. Of course, this is only a problem of the documentation.

Its not really a question of being convinced or not. As I wrote: I never missed the feature. Ok, you provide me now with several examples why this is useful. ok. Btw.: Even in this case templates can be used for the signal mechanism (-> libglademm)

Not really using a new feature is not really something I am guilty of. Blame me for not looking far enough into the software world, blame me for anything, but I am not guilty of that. Sorry, I probably was a bit upset about this statement. My fault.

no, sorry, it was late yesterday evening. - guilty

True. Their choice might have been otherwise after the announcement. I have no idea why they chose GTKmm instead of Qt.

If Qt offers basically everything you need and reduces both the development time and the dependencies to the absolutly necessary minimum, then every other solution is the worse choice. One has to earn money for a living. Good night

Wrong in what way? Forgive me, if my comment was not as clear as it should have been, but I am not wrong in this case. The point was, that this problem is still there, as detailed in the mailing list posting, if you don't use Q_SIGNAL, because you doubted the correctness of the mailing list posting. The point was not that it was added in 4.4 and not previously. You said that it was added in 4.1 and I am in no position to doubt that.

I never said, that the problem is not solved. You told me so in your previous post and I don't doubt it. I don't care about the timing either. I just pointed out, that 4 years is a heck of long time to fix such a problem.

Yeah, a really good answer. It there any better reason to use this? I won't use it just because it is there. I am sorry, but I will not continue this discussion. This is slowly degenerating into a flamewar and I do not see any benefit for either of us if this continues. Have a nice evening.

Sure, Qt gives you an "All in One" toolkit. And I never said, that it does not have lots of features in the library. But if GTKMM is really as bad as you describe it, I wonder how e.g. Ardour (http://ardour.org/) or k-3d (http://www.k-3d.org/wiki/Main_Page) came into being (ok, Ardour does not support Windows, only Linux and Mac OS X). Sure, GTKMM might not offer you what you are looking for, but it still does for other people, who also develop professional software.

Is therefore something of a slight exaggeration.

Sorry, my fault, I was not precise enough. Having only templated collection classes is hardly something to be proud of.

ok, personal choice.

Ok, my bad, I only check the Constructors. What you say about UTF-8,.. is also true, since also GTKmm uses a different string class.

You are really fun. It is true (at the end of the following page - and - hurray - its from trolltech): http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/signalsandslots.html

Even that is not that long ago and more than 4 year after the outdated mailinglist post you criticized.

I don't know what you exactly need, but this might be an option for you if you want Introspection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeid The other major point on the page is creating connections to UI produced from XML files ("GUI is dynamic") I imho frankly don't see much point in doing this. The translations are not in the UI anyway, so why bother to construct the UI from an XML file during runtime? Never missed this feature and its no problem doing something like this with templates during compiletime.

Please be more specific what other good stuff comes from moc and gives you a warm and fuzzy feeeling? I cannot get a warm and fuzzy feeling from programming C in C++.

Have you ever used GTKMM? Why is it so "unproductive"? Are they http://www.gtkmm.org/commercial_support.shtml all wrong?

Point taken, sorry, my fault, but I am not exaggerating everything. A few examples: .) Does it use templates - no. .) Does it use standard collections & iterators - no. .) The standard C++ string? no, you cannot even construct a QString from a std::string without using c-strings. .) Qt hardly uses any exceptions (apart from exceptions thrown by "new" and those are not QT exceptions). No templates, no exceptions? So I think I am not that far from the truth. Nevertheless sorry for the exaggeration.

It is still featured in the wikipedia entry about QT, and therefore still seems to be valid. Please correct the (german) wikipedia entry if you feel that this is not valid anymore. The english wikipedia entry boils basically down to the same conclusion. Q_SIGNALS is a new name for the same old concept: C-macros. The advantage is of course, that it won't pollute the namespace anymore. And it seems to have appeared in QT 4.4 (please correct me if I am wrong), that means somewhere in Mai 2008. So that development is pretty recent and therefore not really something to be proud of.

I have read it all. And some things on this page are plain wrong: example: "Our approach goes far beyond anything you can do with templates. For example, we can have object properties. And we can have overloaded signals and slots, which feels natural when programming in a language where overloads are a key concept." It basically a marketing page.

So does Gtk. You can wrap C++ templates with SWIG, but this is not the way templates are meant to be used and therefore more complicated. But it is possible.

You are right, that is a shortcoming of C++. Meanwhile lots of compilers support "typeof". The library Boost.Typeof should also be able to help under certain circumstances. The question for me is: Do I really want to call a function based on a string name? I never came across a situation where I needed to do that. There were always more robust ways so solve the problem.

Wow, it might even take me less than 10 min to learn and I actually learned it, but I don't really see the point in using a language, when you don't actually use pretty much anything of this language. C++ has evolved, the basics of QT havn't. Perhaps nuissance is not the right word, perhaps annoyance is better, but Moc is imho simply a hack for something the language can deliver itself by now. Yeah, perhaps I am a C++ purist, but I seem to be not the only one who thinks that C-Macros should have very little place in a C++ program - especially when they pollute the main namespace. E.g. see http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/2002-08/thread00000-1.html

Because it forces me to program C++ in a way that is very unlike C++. If you read the comments on the QT homepage concerning templates you get the impression, that they wish C++ to be way more like Objective C or Java. There is lots you can do with C++ without the need for a metaobject compiler: class properties, signals, slots, ... - just have a look at www.boost.org and see what is has to offer. Memory consumption is nowadays not really the issue anymore. (If you use KDE, you also use lots of the KDE libraries, which add a lot to the memory consumption.)