>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb: >> This notion that change is always progress is pure bullshit. Michael> I agree with you to some degree. However, Michael> - there is some evidence that qt4 is superior to qt3 (at Michael> least some people think so) I'd like to see this evidence (as far as LyX needs are concerned). My take are that the two real arguments in favor of qt4 are - we get nice winxp theme for free on windows, and everybody loves eye-candy; we also get the real qt instead of an unofficial port. - the big contributor to GUI work these days is Abdel, and he wants to work on qt4. Note however that this qt4 frenzy is just an historical accident: Abdel wanted qt4 because mingw is too slow. Now that 1.4 is on the verge of being build with msvc on windows, the argument falls. And I think it took less work to make 1.4 work with msvc than to make a brand new frontend (of course the fun factor is lower). But we all now by now that Abdel's style is to rewrite everything from scratch when a bug or syntax error makes him stall for more than one day :) My oint is that we could have done the transition to qt4 in the 1.6 timeframe, when there is a need for it. And this transition would have been much much smoother (with the notable exception of windows). Michael> - development has already shifted from qt3 to qt4 and IMHO Michael> this shift is irreversible Michael> - the qt4 frontend is already as good as qt3, i.e. we don't Michael> through away something just to start from scratch again. Yes, the argument is: we made the qt4 frontend by mistake and now we have too much work to maintain it and qt3 at the same time; so we should make as if this was a really well-thought program and proceed. This is a not a very glorious argument, and if we are to follow this route, I definitely expect to see assurances that the fallouts will be handled. JMarc
