RE: Glade vs Hand code

I recommend letting Glade generate the xml file then use libglade to parse it. Code the stubs you referenced in Glade. Keeps Glade and your code clean with each other.  

-----Original Message-----
From: gtk-list-bounces gnome org [mailto:gtk-list-bounces gnome org] On Behalf Of Andrew Cowie
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:09 AM
To: gtk-list gnome org
Subject: Re: Glade vs Hand code

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 19:32 +0100, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
> So, an opposite opinion:
> simple-minded, static interface => glade is good complex, dynamic, 
> data-driven => glade is an obstacle

I would agree with David here.

I find that I've been through a few iterations of "like Glade, hate Glade".

At first, I thought it was brilliant. Certainly the fact that you can easily set tons of properties, etc, was just the cat's meow.

Then, as I started building up more complex and especially dynamic user interface elements, I found Glade was getting in the way. Too much trouble. One big pain is naming the widgets in Glade and then ensuring that the widgets you lookup code side match. Really messes you over when you do refactorings (which, working in java-gnome as I do, is something one does A LOT via the wonders of Eclipse et al)

[at that point, however, I'd actually settled on some programming conventions whereby it is transparent whether an application window is code derived or glade derived. The wonders of subclassing. So, now, it doesn't really make any difference which I do]

So then in a new application I decided "well, forget Glade" and started doing everything programmatically. And then I realized that I was having to deal with coming up with variable names for each and every bloody Label, and that was a real pain in the ass.

So the conclusion I settled on was to use Glade for as much scaffolding as possible, thus saving the object pressure of proxies being created for not much at all, but not to try and do anything even remotely complicated in Glade, preferring to hand off and switch to code at that point.

And, no doubt, I'll be of a different opinion next month. :-)


Andrew Frederick Cowie
Operational Dynamics Consulting Group
Management Consultants specializing in strategy, organizational architecture, procedures to survive change, and performance hardening for the people and systems behind the mission critical enterprise.


Sydney    +61 2 9977 6866
New York  +1 646 472 5054
Toronto   +1 647 477 5603
London    +44 207 1019201

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