RE: [gtk-list] GTK++ proposal

I generally disagree with moving to C++. I for one would no longer
contribute to GTK+ if it moved to C++. I see no good reasons in your
'argument' for doing so.

IMO, C++ is just an attempt to jump on the OO bandwagon and is an
ugly and bloatish misconception. I am by no means a C++ expert, but I
have written a 20,000 line software project using it.

On 26-Jan-99 wrote:
> Before I say more, I realise that people are working 
> at creating bindings for C++, and other bindings exist 
> for many other languages as well, however, I believe 
> that many of the bindings created break the original 
> aims of GTK+ - to be a fast, small and efficient 
> toolkit for programming the X Window System. 
> Many bindings created thus far are either extremely 
> criptic, add unrequired code bulk, or are lacking in 
> features found in GTK+.

I always look at the aborted attempt to use C++ in the Linux kernel
as a good example of why not to use C++. It's less efficient and the
compilers are horrendously bug ridden ( and the gcc people have
traditionally been very bad at fixing them ).

> A C++ version would greatly simplify the learning curve 
> of the toolkit, especially in creating new widgets for 
> the library. Theme support for example could be added 
> simply by deriving new classes for each widget 
> containing a modified virtual draw function. 

This simply doesn't follow. The *vast* majority of users of the
toolkit are not interested in creating new widgets. I don't know, but
how many of the current developers would we lose through changing to

IMO, GTK+ is a very well designed OO system as it stands.

> I realise that it would put back GTK+ development a 
> while, but the ease at which it would be to program 
> using an object-oriented toolkit in C++ rather than 
> in C would in my opinion be worth the hard work. 

I don't believe that with the current well designed OO system that
this is at all true.

> I am in no way trying to tarnish the image of GTK+. 
> I am simply trying to extend it by thinking towards 
> the future. 

I have never met anyone who thinks that C++ is the 'future'. More
like a step backwards. OO should be more a way of thinking
about/designing software than in actually coding it. 


"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?"
 -Ronald Reagan

Go Bezerk!

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]