Shawn Walker wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:09 AM, James Cornell <sparcdr at sparcdr.com> wrote: > >> Yeah, but at least they are making an active attempt to make it more >> integrated/native with Firefox 3.0. At least they use an Apple >> supported framework too, albeit Carbon. >> > > As long as they use XUL, people will continue to complain. > > >> Carbon apps typically smell of high CPU usage, Cocoa of high memory >> usage, and GTK of kludge and stinkbait. >> > > Sorry, but I don't think GTK deserves your criticism. It has been > working towards a native mac look just as much as FireFox. > > But, let's stay on topic and not have flamewars over "favourite toolkits". > > Thanks, > See, that's the issue here, it's alien because it uses XUL, it will never integrate correctly. GTK does not bother me, it's good enough on Windows for a lot of programs, and it's superb on X11. I use many GTK apps, just can't figure out why it's taken so long to even get it ported to OSX correctly. Skinning is does not count (Gimp.app) it's not good enough, it must be as good as Carbon/XUL before people stop complaining so loudly.
I'm all for change and enhancement, just don't try and make it sound like it's capable of replacing or working alongside Carbon/Cocoa on OSX, it isn't. Mainly a stability/maturity issue right now, I can grab working sources now, but no GTK+ apps are specifically adopting hacks to make it seem decent on OSX, they all ignore it and assume everyone LOVES running X11. (I don't know what people think, it just stinks not having much of an option for e-mail clients on OSX) James
