Re: [gtk-list] Re: Excuse me for mentioning the unmentionable, but...

[Tor Lillqvist <tml hemuli tte vtt fi>]

> > Windoze isn't a proper multi-tasking environment. Or at least, W3.11
> > wasn't. I doubt W95 is any better.

> > Spend too long in a thread in W3.11, and the event stack overflows
> > (!) and all the most recent events get dropped on the floor. You
> > don't get told about this, but the user finds that several of his
> > last key-clicks don't get through!

I am *not* an Windoze expert in any way, but I am pretty certain that
this is much improved in Win95, and I would be amazed if NT did
anything like that.

> I personally find the message handling in Windows (even 95) rather 
> crude.  I much like the use of callbacks, like in the GTK.

I surely don't want to get a reputation for being a backer of Windows
(I am not, honestly), but you cannot compare the Win32 API to GTK
(comparing apples and pear cider). It is more appropriate to compare
raw Xlib to Win32 (apples to pears).

> > possibly if GTK were to concentrate only on supporting 32-bit
> > programming, some of that might go away.

Of course. Surely nobody in their right mind wants to have anything to
do with 16-bit far/near etc crap any longer.

> > Does W95 make any use of the memory-management on the [345]86
> > chip?

Of course.

> Have you ever compared a "Hello, World" program in native Windows to the 
> same kind of program in GTK?

Again, you are comparing the wrong things here, but still, even in
plain Win32 there is the MessageBox call that could be used in a
simple "Hello, World" program without having to use MFC.