In my opinion..
The total amount of energy needed to maintain Gtk is X. X is
proportional to the size of the code base S. X is also proportional to
the age of the code A. The older it is, the more programmers have
touched it, the more hacks it has accumulated.
So the equation is:
X=A*S
the total
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 14:28 +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 7 jun 2008 kl. 14.02 skrev Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro:
>
>
>
> > Regarding "gtk+-2.0 dying", I am amazed by that statement. I realize
> > that gtk+ developers like yourself have studied the matter with
> > greater
> > detail
2008/6/6 jaafar EL GONNOUNI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello;
>
> What is glib adding that the GTK + compared to Xlib ?
>
> All what is possible with glib with Xlib is feasible, then why create a new
> library.
GObject for example.
--
Felipe Contreras
___
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 11:05 +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> 6 jun 2008 kl. 19.22 skrev Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro:
>
> >> You just need to remember, nobody is forcing you to use Gtk+ 3.0 or
> >> even
> >> Gtk+ at all.
> >
> > That will not be true in practice. Once Gtk+ 3.0 com
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 18:22 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> I think I agree with Muntyan here. Gtk+ 3.0 brings nothing exciting, so
> why break API? It's just so pointless and painful for everyone. So
> much effort done with memory profiling and now we'll have to have two
> libraries,
The Gtk language bindings page suggests that I drop an email
to this list, so as to update the S-Lang entry to reflect that
2.8 and 2.10 are partially supported.
Thanks,
Mike
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org
Hi Gustavo,
6 jun 2008 kl. 19.22 skrev Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro:
>> You just need to remember, nobody is forcing you to use Gtk+ 3.0 or
>> even
>> Gtk+ at all.
>
> That will not be true in practice. Once Gtk+ 3.0 comes out, Gtk+ 2.0
> will die a slow death, and projects have to switch to Gtk+
