Re: [gtk-list] Re: announce: yet another gtk+ C++ wrapper (no capsas Owen suggest)

[John Utz <utz serv net>]

We are having a cathedral vs bazarre thing happening here :-)

it is a given fact that object methods have not demonstrated a Closed Form
minimization: ie nobody can tell you mathematically or even
philisophically what is the minimum object set to meet all needs.

It is also completely whacky to try and compel folks to support 'The One
True Object Framework (tm) '. It doesn't happen in commercial land,
getting huffy about it in opensource land looks really silly.

I think that multiple object frameworks is a good idea.


On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Karl Nelson wrote:

> 
> I personally side with Laurent on this one.  
> 
> > >- it's confusing to the users
> > 
> > i do not think that gtk+ users will be confused, they are not are babies or
> > stupid and can judge what is good and what is garbage :-)
> 
> But there will be some confusion especially when it comes to end
> users.  Why should there be three shared libraries on system, two of
> which are providing wrappers for the same thing?  The question
> becomes how different are they. (not just in writing philosophy,
> but also in end use.)  I had enough trouble trying to sort through
> all the widget sets much or less figure out which wrapper I wanted.
> 
> (By the way, which is garbage and why?  Gtk-- seems to work
> well for me and you seem to feel VDK is good, so we
> aren't talking about something as simple as one being garbage.)
> 
> > >- it would be a duplication of a rather heavy effort (keeping Gtk-- up
> > > to date with gtk+ is no small task, believe me),
> 
> > difficulties are not good reasons to block others possibilities or enterprises,
> > GNU manifesto encourages all efforts and is born to deny such mentality,
> > only users should made the last sentence :-)
> >
> Unfortunately, there will then also be a division of effort.  Since
> both packages will need to be mantained and there is very little
> showing in the C++ department in Gtk already,  (many C++ people
> are in the QT camp)  it seems like the pool of available testers,
> users, and mantainers is small.  Was this project ever discussed with
> the community to see what they needed/wanted?
> 
> On the other hand, my limited understanding of VDK is that it
> has largely different design goals.  Therefore, we should
> certainly not dismiss it.  However, some discussion of its
> scope may be needed.  If one or the other projects
> expands to eliminate the need of the other, people are
> going to be unhappy.  
> 
> I saw VDK appear on the Gtk web pages before its announcement here.
> I was quite surprised, as there had been any talk of a competing
> C++ wrapper before.  And as I help with Gtk--, I would have liked time
> to comment earlier.  (Maybe I missed it.)	
>    
> > >- there does not seem to have any technical reason why the VDK
> > >  "goodies" could not be added to Gtk--. I'll certainly look into it
> > >  whenever I have the time.
> >  >
> > you are right, no "technical" ones, simply the will to make Gtk+ easier  and provide 
> > more possibilities to the users. I believe that having more than one choice is
> > better than having only one.
>  
> Having more than one choice is only good if the choice is real and
> distiguishable.  If the two are largely indistiguishable, it will 
> quickly decay to personal preferences, marketing, and non-technical 
> reasons.  Eventually one will die and likely the developers will simply
> disappear.  I would perfer to avoid competing packages if possible.
> So the arguement that two is better would be moot, because in the
> end there would be just one.
> 
> (I personally have a grudge against gtkgl on the basis of
> its overdesign and use of non-portable macros.  Never being
> able to contact the author, I chose to support the author
> of gtkglarea which had a better(simpler) code base.  I would
> have perfered there be only one gtk widget with one C++ warpper.
> So if it is possible to keep only one non-competing version, 
> it would be a good thing.  There is wasn't possible.)
> 
> --Karl
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe gtk-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
> 
>