> > FWIW, C# or Java isn't going to be much better. In fact, no programming > > language is a godsend and will make all of our work easy and make all of > > our bugs go away. Mono will be better for Evolution, probably, but you > > have to consider that these guys are using a self-created object > > heirarchy based on C and structs-as-vtables, without many of the > > FYI C++ works in the same way, with structs as vtables, only you > didn't check a C++ compiler sources to see how it works.
I know very well how C++ implements this, and have implemented it
myself, in fact. I'm just saying that with GObject (or GTKObject) you
have to do this manually (and then you don't need to give a hoot how it
works under the hood, becuase it JUST WORKS and is all done FOR YOU BY A
TOOL).
struct _myObject
{
};
struct _myObjectsClass
{
}
#define MY_OBJECT(x) GTK_CHECK_TYPE_CAST()
#define iS_MY_OBJECT(x) GTK_IS ( GTK_CHECK_TYPE ( x, GTK_TYPE_XYX ) )
YUCK!
> > language features that BOTH C++ and C# offer.
>
> Care to name a C# feature we don't support (or we don't plan to
> support)? Actually, the runtime supports more features than C# the
> language offers. But, yes, we are not done yet, we know that.
I never said that you didn't or won't. You need to go reread what I
wrote with a cool head, lupus. I said that Evolution was programmed
using C with the GObject/GTKObject system instead of a language like C++
or C# or Java and the Evolution's programming time would have been
lower, probably, if they had used C#, C++, etc... If that much was
unclear, I'm sorry.
Dom
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
