Re: Would it be possible that gtk implementation in C++

[黄羽众 <ihyzi 163 com>]

Thanks for all of the replies. I learnd a lot from it.

Compare to many people here, I am freshman in GTK/GTKmm. I make this proposal just because sometimes I miss 
the day when I am using QT/Android/HTML5.

Now I will put these toolkits into the fields they athlete at. Each of them could be great, in diffinerent 
situation, different goal, even in different philosophy.

Thanks again, I will continue learning GTK/GTKmm.


Sent from MEIZU MX

-------- Original Message --------
From：Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com>
Time：Fri 8/8 22:47
To：黄羽众 <ihyzi 163 com>
Cc：Florian Pelz <pelzflorian googlemail com>,gtk-list gnome org
Subject：Re: Would it be possible that gtk implementation in C++

> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:06 PM, 黄羽众 <ihyzi 163 com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for point out predecessors' question!
> >
> > I read the question and get some points, but I thinks the situtations
> > change a lot and I am not ask the same question.
> >
> > 1. I am not ask for why GTK choose to implement in C, I know it have some
> > historical reason. I want to make a proposal that gtk could be re-written
> > with c++ just as GCC does. I want to discuss with you whether it is a good
> > idea.
>
> yet somehow you missed the most critical reason. historically, perhaps, one
> could consider that things like pygtk did not exist. currently they do.
> creating such bindings with the core implementation in C++ is challenging.
> thus the sort of move you are suggesting would make the continued support
> of languages like python more difficult.
>
> in addition, you seem concerned about app developers, but app developers do
> not (as a rule) develop Gtk+. They develop their own apps, and they are
> free to use gtkmm, just as I've done with Ardour for the last 12 years. Do
> I care that "in fact" Gtk+ is implemented in C? Well, yes, a bit but that
> is mostly because I have a very demanding application and portability goals
> that force me to occasionally work on Gtk+ itself. If I were writing a
> simpler application (and other than a modern web browser or a kernel,
> almost all apps are simpler than Ardour :), gtkmm would be entirely
> adequate and as an app developer, I would be using a C++ GUI toolkit. And
> if I wanted to write my own new widgets, I could, and do it much more
> easily than in C. You say:
>
>
> > . Although there are gtkmm available, but gtkmm didn't gain enough
> > official support and recommend as GTK, and much fewer reference, help,
> > support available. The official recommand is gtk in c rather than gtkmm in
> > c++, so many devlopers read some tutorials and feel threatened and leave.
> > What's worse, gtkmm didn't wrapper all of the gtk featurese. In some
> > complex cases, developers have to use the low level gobj pointer to get
> > things done.
>
> ALthough the final point is true, it isn't common. As for documentation and
> the rest, I've always found that once I made the decision to use gtkmm,
> what existed was adequate (support, tutorials, etc).
>
>
> > Now is in 2014, It can't be more normal to develop GUI application with
> > OOP style. I think it's time to change.
>
> If you're really so concerned with it being 2014, I'm not sure why you're
> considering using Gtk+ at all. I don't have an alternative to suggest, but
> it is a remarkably dated GUI toolkit in many ways. Not all though.
>
>
> > GTK could be rewritten in C++,
>
> But will not be. Find something more productive to put your energy into.