Am Freitag, den 04.06.2010, 00:16 +0200 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys: > On 3 June 2010 20:39, Marc Santhoff wrote: > > No it isn't pointless. You forget about embedded computers, they are not > > growing over time and are running on small amounts of resources, e.g. a > > 233 MHz Geode CPU having 64 MB of RAM. I wouldn't even dare to try GTK2 > > on that little things. > > Then switch to fpGUI for embedded systems. It works perfectly and is > low on resources and small size executables. Plus fpGUI is a lot more > modern in looks than GTK1 - and fpGUI is still actively being > developed. :)
Hm, maybe next time. When I started to write the programs in question I didn't even know there is fpGUI. I think there wasn't at all. ;) But if I really would have to change the code base used for those programs or their future descendants at all they will definitively not be dependent on only one widget set alone. > But yes, I kind of see your point. But do you also know that LCL-GTK1 > is *not* being maintained at all any more. You might complain, but > clearly nobody is actually using LCL-GTK1 any more because so far it > is only I that noticed that LCL-GTK1 is currently broken. Most of the > times it can't compile, and when it does you can't even us it in > applications, because the simplest program will make it crash at > runtime (as my previous posts highlight and error log showed). > > So if I was still maintaining an application that must use GTK1, I'll > definitely stay with whatever Lazarus LCL-GTK1 version was the most > stable. So far, that seems to be v0.9.26.2 Sure, at the cost of having to care for one more installation of IDE and compiler, remembering aka documenting the differences and so on. > > But what exactly is the benefit of doing all this work? > > 1) It will be the start of cleaning up the spaghetti code required for GTK2 > 2) The cleanup will probably allow LCL-GTK2 to be easier to maintain. Most > here > complain that it's a mess. > 3) Ending up with clearer code, it might even make LCL-GTK2 less buggy (like > it's counterpart LCL-Qt - which is much younger code by the way). Looks like mostly viewn with the maintainers hat on. My point of view is more like the "api users" view as a programmer not changing the underlying widget set itself. Besides that, "maybe" and "might" do not count. ;) > 4) Why advertise a feature that is constantly broken. Lazarus is already well > know for being buggy - so why add fuel to the flames. Never heard that. Do you sell lazarus? ;) > 5) Code evolves. Out with the old, in with the new. Really good code doesn't need to evolve. ;) But you're right, every season brings a new fashion and style. -- Marc Santhoff <[email protected]> -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
