Re: OO approaches to GTK+

[Dan Rosen <dr cs brown edu>]

Hi John -

Sounds like you're proposing to work on a new language specification... I
don't know how much thinking you've done on the topic, but I'm sure you
realize how complicated the issue is. Not that I even know a fraction of
the issues involved, but I can only imagine... :)

It's fortunate for most OO language programmers that GTK+ was constructed
with object-oriented principles in mind. You might be interested to see
what the creators and core programmers have to say about the general topic
of "playing well with C" (because, for one thing, it seems like some C
code just wasn't meant to be touched by any living soul, never mind
another language).

I personally can't offer you any direct insight. I just don't know enough.
I might suggest looking at some of Bjarne Stroustrup's (the primary
creator of C++) documentation regarding C and C++ playing nicely with each
other.

Have fun,
Dan

On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, John Jensen wrote:

> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I just joined the list.  I've done one simple GTK+ app in C, and a second
> implementation in an OO language ... for which I chose TOM.  I'm much more
> at ease writing OO, having most recenlty oriented my programming neurons
> for Java.  Anyway, my current interest is in good OO languages with good C
> connectivity.  It strikes me that wrapping GTK+ is a more interesting
> problem than simply wrapping GTK+ ... to be a good citizen in this new
> open source world, a language has to play nice with a lot of C.
> 
> For this world, I don't see a VM as being terribly useful either.  It
> still might be nice to have GC, but rather than a ClassLoader it might be
> nice to have "packages", "modules" or "units"  that resolve to shared
> libraries.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> John
> 
> 
> -- 
>          To unsubscribe: mail gtk-app-devel-list-request@redhat.com with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
> 
> 	Mailing list concerns should be mailed to <listmaster@redhat.com>
> 
>