Re: Steps to get to GTK+ 3.0

["Felipe Contreras" <felipe contreras gmail com>]

On 6/5/08, Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort brutele be> wrote:
>
> Sure, both systems need some reflection capabilities, which neither C
>  nor C++ support natively. I don't see how this point would debunk the
>  fact that C++ is a more expressive language than C, and that writing
>  an object-oriented application in C++ is generally easier and more
>  pleasant than writing it in C.
>
>  I know that C++ has its share of issues, and I do understand why in
>  the nineties, the GLib people decided to use C and not C++. I actually
>  agree with their decision. Yet, if some people claim that "Qt is
>  superior because it chose C++", trying to disprove them with the above
>  argument is like trying to oppose general relativity with "because my
>  aunt Lilly likes to drink tea".

I'm not familiar with Qt, I only repeat what I've heard; Qt is
superior because it renders faster. Planing to solve the issues in
GTK+ that will improve performance is useful, advocating C++ is not.

I doubt 3.0 will be in C++, 4.0, and possibly any other release. Can
we focus on productive discussions?

Best regards.

P.S. Me, and many developers hate C++ with passion, if a toolkit
requires C++, it's cutting a huge user-base.

-- 
Felipe Contreras