Re: [gtkmm] porting projects from gtkmm-1.2 to gtkmm2

On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 21:59, Chris Vine wrote:
> On Thursday 16 January 2003 12:36 pm, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 13:23, Leandro Fanzone wrote:
> > >  I say "fine, I understand your point of view", but there's no need to
> > > deny the truth. I wish you could say also "I understand your point of
> > > view".
> >
> > I do. And we have a PORTING document to help people (one that you are
> > free to patch). But if someone says that gtkmm is an unstable API then I
> > must challenge that untrue statement, because there is a risk that
> > someone might believe it.
> Then this is a debate about what is meant by the expression "unstable API".  
> We don't have a catechism to help us to the truth that you refer to, so 
> different people will have different views.

I think it's fairly well understood that gtkmm 1.2 and gtkmm2 are
different, independent, but similar, APIs. If they were not
parallel-installable then it would be fair to say that the existence of
gtkmm2 affected your use of gtkmm 1.2. You might not agree, but I can't
help that, and noone has offered any alternative.

Someone said that the mere existence of gtkmm 2 meant that less people
wanted to help with gtkmm 1.2 because they aren't using it anymore. But
the situation would not be better with an API that had ceased
development - If gtkmm2 did not exist then less people would be using
any gtkmm because it would have stagnated and died. 

> I do respect and am grateful for the work that you and the other library 
> developers do with Gtkmm.  However, I am sure this subject could be discussed 
> without such disproportionate responses as those earlier.

I'm trying to point out the flawed logic. In particular, someone
suggested that "commercial" (I think he meant "proprietary") APIs were
likely to make life easier. I don't see any evidence of that, and it's
clear that gtkmm2 exists only because it is open source.

The existence of a commercial entity behind an API makes very little
difference to this situation. I know I'm repeating myself, but maybe I
can make it clearer: If there's anything that anyone wants from gtkmm2
that isn't already there then they have always been able to pay for it,
just like they imagine they could with a proprietary API:

In the end I can't help it people don't believe that the following
solutions are perfectly possible:
a) Start a gtkmm_deprecated_widgets project
b) Pay someone to do if for you.

And I can't help if it isn't important enough for someone to take
action, but is is important enough to write emails. If I seem bothered
by this thread it's because people are suggested that we should do
something different, without even saying what they would like us to do.
Maybe a commercial company would at least bullshit you by saying "Yes,
of course you are right" and then ignoring you.

Sorry if I tend to go on - I'm doing my best to be concise.

Murray Cumming
murray usa net

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