Re: [Glade-devel] Re: glade code generation

[Jon Cast <jcast ou edu>]

Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 17:43, Mark McLoughlin wrote:

> [ Cc'ing glade-devel as a more appropriate forum ]

> > Hey,

> > 	I've just had to explain for the umpteenth time to people to use
> > libglade instead of code generation ... Surely if we're not
> > recommending that anyone use it, we should just remove it completely
> > to avoid the confusion ?

I'm sorry, but I seem to have missed this bit; why shouldn't people use
glade?

> Makes sense to me; we had

>  Don't use glade to generate code, use libglade!

> As the /topic in #gtk+ for a week or so, and there were a ton of
> people coming in, seeing the topic and asking about it because they
> had been struggling with glade's generated code.

Is there an archive for #gtk+?  I'd like to read this.

> Regards,
>                                    Owen

> (Note that there may be resistance from the people who have written
>  code generation plugins for various languages,

Yeah.  Note that for some languages (such as my favorite, Haskell),
using libglade is painful enough to suggest a need for another code
generator to handle all the cruft :)

> but I think the same basic principle applies there. If you don't have
>  excellent IDE integration, you don't want to generate code. Maybe not
>  even then.)

Somebody better tell the bison & flex folks; I think they've missed
this somehow :)

Jon Cast
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers