Re: [gtk-list] Re: Why is gtk+ written in C?
- From: Scott Stone <sstone ume pht co jp>
- To: Brandon Long <blong fiction net>
- cc: gtk-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: [gtk-list] Re: Why is gtk+ written in C?
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:38:03 +0900 (JST)
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 <email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org>
Head of TurboLinux Development/Systems Administrator
Pacific HiTech, Inc (USA) / Pacific HiTech, KK (Japan)
] [Thread Prev