Re: [gtk-list] Re: Why is gtk+ written in C?

[Scott Stone <sstone ume pht co jp>]

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Brandon Long wrote:

> On 10/13/98 Eric Harlow uttered the following other thing:
> > 
> > Isn't C++ portable? 
> > Couldn't GTK have been written C++ with bindings to other languages? 
> 
> Under Unix?  Not really.  Until recently, C++ wasn't standardized, and
> as such, different compilers provide different levels of
> compatibility.  Its been said that each version of g++ is broken in
> different ways.  Recall that gcc is a cathedral project, and the rate of
> change is rather slow.
> 
> Most languages provide for binding interfaces using C, and I imagine
> that languages without objects would be hard to bind to C++.  Also, the
> object model of C++ is rather limited in some ways, which would make
> binding to other object models more difficult.

Note, however, that the libstdc++ that comes with egcs is far less buggy
than the standard gnu libstdc++, and we don't even need to talk about
libg++, which should by now hopefully have been stamped out of existance.
However, I always statically link against libstdc++ when I'm forced to use
it, because, as you said, with each new version... at least the egcs folks
acknowledge this and warn you about it :)

--------------------------------------------------
Scott M. Stone <sstone@pht.com, sstone@turbolinux.com>
               <sstone@pht.co.jp>
Head of TurboLinux Development/Systems Administrator
Pacific HiTech, Inc (USA) / Pacific HiTech, KK (Japan)
http://www.pht.com		http://armadillo.pht.co.jp
http://www.pht.co.jp	        http://www.turbolinux.com