Re: Programmer's criticism of GTK2

["Norman Black" <stonybrk ix netcom com>]

> > For simplified functionality one can provide a simplified interface.
The
> > GTK developers apparently decided to blow that off. After all, why
> > should they write that code once, when all of us can each write such
a
> > thing for ourselves, or we can deal with the complexity on each an
every
> > instance we use the control.
>
> You're right, our goal is to fuck you over and write sucky APIs. And
> then we make the source code and development mailing lists closed, to
> keep you from contributing to or commenting on the APIs as they are
> plotted in our evil minds. Don't get me started on the private bug
> database that no one can see or add to.
>
> Havoc

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth.
Do you behave in such a manner in public, or only over the internet.

I never said the API was a sucky API. The statement was that the APIs
are overly "complex". Complex can have many meanings. From my reading,
the usage of complex in this thread said that GTK2 requires more code to
do the same thing than GTK1.2. This was in reference to the GTK2
List/Tree widget.

Yes, GTK2 makes it easier, or just makes it possible, to do more
sophisticated things. I feel it is safe to say that the majority of
usage (number of instances) of a list widget is for very simple usage.
Therefore why not have a simple API for simple usage. Something like
this would be a separate widget. Something like SimpleList or whatever
you tickles your fancy.

Since the developers were aware of the additional coding necessary, to
no effect for simple usage, and that no simple API existed, "The GTK
developers apparently decided to blow that off." I said "apparently"
since other trains of thought could exist. An obvious one being that the
simpler CList still existed, so someone could use that until it
disappears.  I did not think this was a likely train of thought. Another
thought is that encapsulating and hiding the additional coding necessary
is a simple thing to do so users could easily do this if it makes sense
for them. In my mind it is much more efficient to have such a thing done
in the official API rather than every user doing this for themselves.
Obviously different people are going to come up with differing ideas
about what "simpler" means. I in no way advocate that GTK become the
million API toolkit. But I do advocate the concept of a simple API for
simple usage, at all points necessary/possible.

As stated previously the additional coding complexity means nothing to
me since I have my own GUI encapsulation, therefore I use my own API and
not the API of the underlying system (GTK or Windows). Therefore no
amount of fucking me over with a sucky API (your words) can have any
real effect on me.

> And
> then we make the source code and development mailing lists closed, to
> keep you from contributing to or commenting on the APIs as they are
> plotted in our evil minds. Don't get me started on the private bug
> database that no one can see or add to.

Nice rant. I hope it made you feel better.

I never made any statements on any of the subjects in this rant, but I
do have a comment.
Why would someone comment on a API when a rant is the possible result?
I will say that I have not noticed such rants over the past year and a
half that I have been reading the GTK mailing list(s).

Best Regards,
Norman Black
Stony Brook Software