Am Montag, 22. Februar 2016, 23:42:24 schrieb Geert Janssens: > > The reason why I suggested Vala instead of C++/gtkmm is that Vala is a > > 1:1 match to the GObject system, and while gtkmm code is certainly > > easier to write that pure GTK+/C code, they aren't really a perfect > > match. > > That does make sense indeed. On the other hand the current objective is the > slowly migrate away from the GObject system, replacing it with true C++ OO. > > One important reason for that is portability to mobile platforms (think IOS, > Android). Some time back it looked like glib/GObject was a major roadblock > in that direction. I don't know whether it still is, but at the time that > was one major driving factor to switch to C++. The future GUI toolkit will > also be evaluated in that context.
I agree that porting from GObject to C++ is a step forward. However, by now I have my doubts whether that effort is actually well invested anymore. Geert, are you sure we said C++ would help in "portability to mobile platforms"? For an android app, it is useless to have "the engine" in C - one needs it in Java anyway, and that's why Ngewi wrote a re-implementation of our data structures in Java for his gnucash-on-android app. I don't think a plain C++(11) plus some boost dependencies would actually help anything when moving the app to a mobile OS. Instead, C++ just tries to make the further development of the desktop application somewhat more realistic. But there is just such a large amount of code... Regards, Christian _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
