On 08-02-13 16:20, John Ralls wrote:
On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:09 AM, Derek Atkins <[email protected]> wrote:
Geert Janssens <[email protected]> writes:
Forgot to mention: Gtk3 was indeed not on the agenda for 2.6. 2.6 is
only meant to be *ready* to be migrated. This means getting rid of all
the deprecated gtk symbols. Other than the register this is done. So
the register rewrite is actually important for this goal, whether we
use the GtkTreeView approach or the libgnome->cairo route.
Personnaly I'd rather see us move to Qt instead of Gtk3 when that
decision has to be made. My reasoning is that I think the Gtk
developers have lost sight of their target audience, and as a result
keep removing features that are vital. It's too much of a loose
firehose, and IMHO shouldn't be supported anymore. Indeed, for my next
desktop re-install I plan to move away from a Gnome desktop and over to
XFCE..
Note that this has nothing to do with the 2.6 release, but it's
something we should think about when contemplating a move to gtk3.
I agree completely, with the additional comment that we should consider
wxWidgets as well.
However, we should make that decision sooner rather than later: If we're going
to drop Gtk, then we should be using C++ and Boost rather than GObject and GLib
for backend work.
Regards,
John Ralls
I did express my interest in Qt before in mails to the list.
But when you also want to switch to C++ and Boost, to me that sounds
more or less like a complete rewrite of GnuCash. We've had this
conversation before, and more or less came to the conclusion we don't
have enough man power to do that.
Unless such rewrite can be done in baby steps, spread over several
releases, say like one module at the time ? Is such a segmentation
possible/practical ?
Geert
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
