On 25/11/2012 22:53, Arbol One wrote: > Well, I guess, it is because you are not using GTKmm to develop on MS-Windows. > Trusting a toolkit that was develop for UNIX to secure the future of a company that develops primarily for Windows was not a good idea, in retrospective. However, the decision was made because, according to the GTK+ website, this tool kit has been designed to work on Windows and UNIX. This was true until version 3 came out. > The lack of concern GTK+ has shown for MS has me worried. As a MS developer I feel out of the loop, since none of my questions are any longer valid or important; it has become clear to me that the UNIX developers are busy porting their applications to gtkmm-3.x, and do not have time to deal with my gtkmm-2.4 questions. I have stated more than once in this mailing list my concern about the future of my gtkmm-code. At times I wonder if I am wasting my time learning more gtkmm-2.4, since it is already archaic, and there are no signs of version 3 coming to the MS world. > Call me paranoid, but I had the same jitters when I went to work for a company that used Borland compiler and Borland's OWL as the foundation of their software development. I mentioned the Software Development Coordinator (SDC) my concerns about the future of OWL and possible the compiler, the SDC took me wrong and said, it is easy to learn than MFC. A year later he was dismissed for his lack of vision. > The rethinking and porting to MFC was brutal, but WTL took place then. > I don't think GTK+ will ever die; Linux will have to die first, and I can see Linux going with us when we go to populate other worlds in other galaxies, however, I do fear that GTK+ will abandon its portability to MS. And what does this have to do with C++11 move constructors? If you wish to discuss the future of Windows support for Gtkmm, then please start a separate thread for it. And if you worry about the future of Gtk+/Gtkmm on Windows, then get out your text editor and do something about it. If Gtkmm 3.x doesn't work on Windows then someone will need to do something about it to get it working, and that someone could very well be you. And finally, please *DO* *NOT* *CC* *ME* in your replies. I don't want duplicate copies of your email turning up in my email client. -- Kind regards, Loong Jin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature