Re: [Caml-list] Re: Hash clash in polymorphic variants

[Kuba Ober <ober.14@osu.edu>]

> > Using Qt with some machine (or not!) generated bindings is just a huge
> > waste -- it's a nice, clean design, which has recently been tweaked for
> > performance (some Qt4 apps start in 50% of the time just by having been
> > ported to Qt4 from Qt3).
>
> I'm inclined to agree.  I would even go as far as saying that the lack of
> Qt bindings is perhaps the biggest open sore as far as Ocaml library
> support is concerned.
>
> The guys at Trolltech, however, seem quite keen on having Qt on as many
> platforms as possible (Qt-Jambi, which brings Qt to the JVM is one of their
> products).  Couldn't this whole auto-generation of bindings be made easier
> if they got involved?

At some point, in order to "naturally" use Qt and benefit from its 
performance, the machine translation will be easier than any bindings you 
could think of. IMHO, of course. Qt's code itself will become smaller in 
Ocaml - I've hacked at porting QObject, and so far I've got the line count to 
50% of Trolltech's. And I'm a total noob.

Cheers, Kuba