Re: [OT] Re: Third draft (was Re: defs files)

Havoc Pennington <> writes:

> Guillaume Laurent <> writes: 
> > A nitpick : while I agree that gtk+ wasn't primarily designed for
> > language bindings, theoretically gnome should be. Yet the Gnome libs
> > are much harder to wrap than gtk+ :-).
> What you're missing is that GTK+ was relatively carefully designed by
> people familiar with the issues,

Which issues ? We just agreed that it wasn't designed for language
bindings:-). Oh well, it's 3am.

> and gnome-libs while primarily written by a few authors was not
> really designed in advance and the authors didn't necessarily know
> what they were doing in all respects.  And now we're stuck with
> legacy APIs. So, yeah you are right that gnome-libs is a big
> mess. Not just for binding authors, it's just a mess.

Well, as someone  recently posted on gnome-hackers, it's much more fun 
to try to put order in chaos. I guess that's what wrapping the
gnome-libs in C++ is akin to :-).

> > I doubt I'll have the time to do that before mid-february, may be I
> > can try this next week.
> Please do. Or February may be soon enough, hard to say.

George just made the same suggestion to me, so I guess I'll really try
to do it.
> Sorry to rant, I was just getting annoyed by this issue last
> night. :-)

No problem, I apologize for pushing you this way.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]