Re: Glade C code a bad thing? (was: root windows)

[Gus Koppel <gtk spamkiller bytechase cx>]

"Freddie Unpenstein" wrote:

> You're going backwards here...  Having the code generation part of
> Glade limits you to what the Glade developers have done, and how good
> they are at doing it.  Having the code generation seperate, allows
> someone else to take over that burdon, who could potentially be better
> at it than they are.

Since Glade code generation supports ALL features which are supported by
the Glade GUI, I think this is a "limit" one can live very well with.
Even the primary replacement project, libglade, didn't for a long time.
I'm not aware of any secondary replacement projects (alternate code
generation projects) at all as yet. I don't see how they could support
more features in translating Glade XML to C source than Glade GUI
supports at all?

> So where's the loss of freedom of choice?  I already see messages from
> someone planning to pick up the torch.

I only saw messages from people claiming that it's (pretty) easy to do.
I haven't seen anyone picking it up or actually planning to do so.

> Reinventing the wheel is sometimes the only way to remove the kinks.  
>  If the tyre on my car blows, I don't try to stitch it back together,
>  I get a new one.  But more importantly, I do so with the knowledge of
>  how that last one performed, and what to look for in the next one.

Reinventing the wheel != replacng a blown wheel with a new one.