On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:35:41 -0400 Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 07:40 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > > > > > Basically, something like this: > > > > http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/properties.html > > > > When reading this and other Qt documents, one realizes that a large > > technological gap separates GLib/GTK+ and Qt. > > I don't want to start a flame war over old hat, but statements like this > shouldn't go unchallenged. GLib/GTK+ chose a different technology as a > base than Qt did (C vs. C++, and no pre-processing source versus > preprocessing source). Different, and inferior. While the reasons that motivated the language choice are quite respectable (especially when considering that this choice dates back to the nineties), the only motivation I can find for avoiding preprocessing is ease of implementation. It seems that the initial GLib/GTK+ designers wanted to complete the base framework quickly, to be able to move on and focus on what really mattered to them (GIMP). There's nothing wrong with that, but now that quite some time has passed, isn't it time to improve that initial design somehow? > > Fortunately, Imendio has > > impressive plans for GTK+ 3.0 (things that developers of client code > > have been wanting for years, such as the removal of deprecated code or > > the mangling of fields), so one can rest assured that this gap is > > going to be closed in no time. > > i've been developing GTK apps for about 9 years, and I can assure you > that removal of deprecated code or field mangling has never, ever, ever > been an issue in the process. This paragraph was ironic. -- Jean-Yves Lefort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgp77Cj7WtsNS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
