On 19 June 2012 11:20, pancake <panc...@youterm.com> wrote: > On 06/19/12 17:11, Calvin Morrison wrote: >> >> On 19 June 2012 09:48, Luis Anaya <papoan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Calvin Morrison <mutanttur...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>>>>>> Is anyone planning to port surf for gtk3? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once I have a system that uses GTK3, I'd have to do it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> are you from the past? >>>>> >>>>> Pretty close: I use Slackware. >>>> >>>> I am wondering if there are any advantages to using gtk3? >>> >>> My 2 cents... without any support material. >>> >>> 1. The biggest motivation would be library support going forward if the >>> gtk2 libraries get deprecated. >> >> Yes, I still have Qt3 and GTK1 on my systems :-) in fact they work >> quite well for the applications that use them! I would say most >> systems will still have gtk2 in 3-4 years. >> >>> 2. I am not sure if there are any performance improvement in >>> execution. My gut feeling is that it will not matter much. >> >> My feeling is that GTK3 is probably slower, though I don't have any >> meat to back it up with. Though, it could be better because they're >> removed a lot of deprecated crap (while adding more crap) >> >>> 3. Considering that the GTK1 libraries were being delivered for a long >>> time after the GTK2 ones were available in Linux distros, I would expect >>> a long phasing time for these as well. >> >> What about using and IFDEF for GTK2/3 stuff? I work on a terminal >> emulator called svte [0] that was originally written for GTK3. Support >> for GTK3 is a small patch, consisting of some basic renaming of GDK >> keysyms and some other semantic stuff. It's not very suckless but >> supporting GTK2 and GTK3 is realistic. >> >> All of that, to say - we cannot (and I don't think anyone does) >> pretend that surf's underlying core doesn't suck - glib is a >> nightmare to work with and Qt isn't much better. the whole g-blob is >> terrible, but we wrap it up and pretend it is pretty. I sometimes wish >> that there was a suckless widget set that worked well but only did >> that - widgets. Then it would be fun to port webkit to that widget set >> :-) ... anyway i'll stop tangenting. > > > http://hg.suckless.org/swk > > feel free to contribute ;) >> >> Calvin >> >> [0] http://code.google.com/p/svte >>
I have played around with swk - though the last commit was 2 years ago and garnered no real support. Thanks for reminding me of this :-) Calvin