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

[Tero Pulkkinen <terop students cc tut fi>]

Michael Babcock <mbabcock@la.creatureshop.henson.com> writes:
> I agree. We actually have three C++ interfaces to Gtk+ now: Gtk--,
> wxWindows, and now VDK. I know it's easier and more fun to make your own
> new interface from scratch than try to improve an existing library, but
> it's less useful in the long run. Now I know, this is the Free Software
> world, we're all friends here ;-) and anyone can do whatever they want.
> But that doesn't mean we should eliminate criticism.

Well, if anyone knows better way to do something in gtk--, there's
people that listen and help implement it. I have a feeling the most
problem with gtk-- is that there's no beginner's documentation for
gtk-- yet. 
(step-by-step tutorial has been started and it'll help about that issue
- the parts I saw looked really great..)

> So we have three interfaces and they all suck. Okay, that's a little
> harsh, but they all _are_ immature. We don't have a single one that is
> complete, mature, and flexible. It's great that one toolkit (Gtk) is
> finally emerging as some sort of standard for Linux, but I worry that
> the design seems a little... ad-hoc. I know it's easier to criticize an
> existing design than to come up with your own, and I'm not saying I
> could do much better, but in the case of graphical toolkits there is a
> lot of good prior art out there. Look at Fresco, Java's JFC, OpenStep
> for some ideas. Even check the Win32 widget API to make sure there isn't
> something simple that it can do that your new Gtk widget can't.

This is why free software is superior to proprietary software. There's
more than one or few people that can affect the design of any piece of
software. If you know alot of better way to implement something than
what is used in existing code, then you should tell it to people,
maybe implement a patch to existing code and try get that patch applied
to the "official" release - if that doesnt work, take the existing code
and apply your patch to it and make your own package out of it.

(Actually, this is how I got involved with gtk--. I had been using Qt
for some time, knew its strenghts(signal/slots) and weaknesses(widget
ownership problems). There was some web page listing nice GUI
libraries. Next to gtk, there reads "on the wishlist is a good C++
wrapper."(1) and then link to gtk--. Figuring out how to make it better
than Qt took quite some time, but the current design has many
advantages over Qt's or gtk+'s signal system, and of course, some
disadvantages too)

(1) The same web page still has that message, they did update the link
    to new place though - there's still work to do, and hopefully the
    message will encourage people to submit more patches :)

> Finally, a minor thing. Any thought of improving Gtk--'s name? As I
> understand it, the person who initiated the Gtk-- project didn't like
> C++ and isn't even working on it now. C++ users already seem to be
> treated enough like second class citizens in the Linux/Gtk world without
> a stupid name to rub it in. It also makes it harder to sell Linux as a
> development environment to potential converts.

This can be considered if someone figures out good alternative and
most people on gtkmm list agrees with the change. 

-- 
-- Tero Pulkkinen -- terop@modeemi.cs.tut.fi --