Re: GObject tutorial next version

[Ryan McDougall <NQG24419 nifty com>]

On Thu, 2004-26-08 at 08:14 -0400, muppet wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2004, at 3:33 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote:
> 

[spelling errors snipped]

> 
> by apologizing for digressing, you're digressing.  how about a footnote 
> or appendix instead?

LOL. Its true that learning any sort of code requires a lot of parallel
learning, and the structure could be better. But sometimes it helps to
explain why we seem to be leaving the main point, then returning.
 
> 
> jumping straight into how do derive your own base object type without 
> GObject, but still using GTypeInstance, is rather confusing.  are you 
> trying to show that you should do it yourself, or that this is the hard 
> way to do it?  remember that many people will skip the prose and jump 
> straight to the code, so putting the example of a Hard Way and not 
> necessarily the right way to do it first may be very misleading.

Thats a really good point, maybe you could point out how I could make it
better.

When writing this I had one main goal, teach myself GObject; and two
main assumptions, that each person learn differently, and there are more
than one tutorial available.

That is the driving reason for the way it looks. I took the route that
made most sense to me: "How would I implement OO in C" and took GObject
as the given answer. In that sense its perfectly logical to pursue
Object Based programming (no derivation) before Object Oriented.

A perfect example is your stated truism that all people will skip the
prose and go straight for the code. Its just not true because thats not
what I'd do. I want code *and* explanation, which  is what I've given.
People who just want code can look else where for far shorter examples.

I tried to state as much in the wording, but perhaps I've failed. Any
ideas? I am going to merge what I have with what Tiago has done, so
there will be more "How do I do X" later on.

Cheers,
Ryan