Re: New 'GObject' as base for GtkObject?
- From: "Shawn T . Amundson" <amundson eventloop com>
- To: gtk-devel-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: New 'GObject' as base for GtkObject?
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:38:40 -0600
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 05:54:41PM -0800, Bill Huey wrote:
> > You aren't going to convince anyone that the GTK core developers are
> > out-of-date idiots and you are some kind of programming genius (unless
> > you maybe point us to your cool code). So why not take it off the
> > list.
> Well, part of *allowing* yourself to be convince by it and to actually
> look at other *modern* object systems. The current system is just plain
> barbaric. Anybody with any experience outside of X and Gtk would make
> the same comments.
> Much of problems with GtkObject seems to be related to what I call a
> "least common denomiator" of software engineering understanding, where
> folks intentionally narrow their view of a problem just to get it done
> without proper design.
I've spent a lot of time working with this team, and I really don't
think the "lowest common denominator" has anything to do with it. Owen
and Tim, who have spent a massive amount of time coding (yes, writing
lines of C in an editor) the internals of GTK+, are more than a few
notches above the average developer when it comes to understanding
After doing a good share of coding GUI stuff on BeOS (yes, after porting
GTK+ to BeOS I started coding in the native toolkit...), I can tell you
for certain that GTK+ is a hell of a lot nicer than some toolkits that
benefit from some more modern language features.
I think the only relevant discussion in this area can be how it will
affect language bindings and GUI builders. Writing applications in C
with GTK+ is currently top-notch.
Shawn T. Amundson firstname.lastname@example.org
Research and Development http://www.eventloop.com/
EventLoop, Inc. http://www.snorfle.net/
"The assumption that the universe looks the same in every
direction is clearly not true in reality." - Stephen Hawking
] [Thread Prev