Re: [GnomeMeeting-devel-list] Refactoring of the addressbook code

[Julien PUYDT <jpuydt free fr>]

Éric Bischoff a écrit :
> Le Jeudi 8 Juin 2006 05:08, Jan Schampera a écrit :
> > > Indeed! Excepted that you are just using the possibilities of the
> > > programming  language, not of some library.
> > Please note, regardless all other arguments, that an own C++-object
> > system will be totally independant of the used framework. In case we
> > leave GTK and GLib some day, the OOP approach won't need any changes.
> >
> > The GObject approach would need either an equivalent in the new
> > framework, or a rewrite to (finally) OOP.
>
> Yes. That was precisely my point.
>
> > Beside that, I tend to say "a matter of taste".
>
> Yes. Sometimes programming has to do with aesthetics. Compare:
>
> === GObject way ===
> struct _GmBook {
>   GObject parent;
> };
>
> struct _GmBookClass {
>   GObjectClass parent;
>
>   const gchar *(*get_name)(GmBook *self);
> };
> ==================
>
> with:
>
> === C++ way ===
> class GmBook {
>   public:
>     virtual get_name() const;
> }
> ==================
>
> My tastes tell me that second code, besides from being much shorter, has more 
> "beauty" than the first one. But as you say, tastes are a very personal 
> thing.

My experience is that when it comes to export the object on DBUS, you're 
better off with a gobject than with a C++ object. One has some 
introspection, the other doesn't.

I prefer working a little harder upfront, then have an easy life, than 
writing easy code then feel miserable :-)

Snark