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

["Freddie Unpenstein" <fredderic excite com>]

Answers to comments from several people here...  No particular order.


> The freedom of designing a GUI without using a GUI while doing so?
> What else? Writing C programs without using a C compiler during
> development?

What, you saying you can't?  I've built some moderately complicated 3D models back when I was playing with 
OpenGL, and I never had any 3D modelling software (in fact, I still don't).  That's an awful lot harder than 
building a GUI.

Sometimes it's easier to tweak the XML file directly, than it is to load up Glade, make the change, and save 
it back again.  Especially if you're using telnet from another computer without an X server, which I've done! 
 For quite a while, a couple years back, I had to do my programming from a Windows box, and schedule time on 
a Linux PC to actually test it.

What if I have a GUI with a stack of check boxes and other widgets, that themselves can be auto-generated.  I 
can roll together a quick program to load up the XML, track down the specific container, replace its contents 
with the autogenerated content (all within an XML library, so I don't have to fiddle with parsing XML 
myself), and save it back down again.  I've had occasions where I've been able to auto-generate large amounts 
of nobrainer code hat had a lot of little bits that needed to be kept in psynch.  Large lookup-tables full of 
pre-calculated mathematics are a prime example.  Not much difference there.


> I was convinced that Linux was about freedom of choice? If code
> designers start limiting the choice of users, next we'll have to
> throw peripherals away because someone decides it's time...
> (sounds familiar?) I did read somewhere that it would be simple to
> write a code converter to re-generate the missing C-code.

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.  And moreso, it allows 
several people to take over that burdon, each with a different target language in mind.  Or just a difference 
of technique.

Linux is built on connecting together a number of strong components to form an equally strong chain.  Unlike 
something else that joins a mix of strong and weak components to form a weak chain (because not even those 
people you referred to, are good at EVERYTHING).

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


> Thhhhhhank you, sir. This confirms that reinventing the wheel,
> even with rough edges, must be more important than i.e. working
> on end user applications using GTK+ and Glade.

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.

That's why we have version 2 of GTK, and why there'll be a version 3 of Glade, and why there'll be a version 
2.8 of the kernel.

And besides, I'm sure the old glade source generating code won't go to waste.  Even if it doesn't get reused, 
it'l at least be looked at for ideas.


I do hope Glade will provide a plugin system to allow the same style of use as before, but regardless, a 
commandline tool that generates C-source from the glade XML file, and a few extra lines in your Makefile, and 
you won't even notice the difference.  Except for a bunch of new options and flexability!


Fredderic

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!