On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:14:21AM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote: > > > On 7/23/2015 10:41 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote: > >I'm inclined to agree with you on C++, but I'd like to refer you to Roger > >Leigh's comments on the subject about seven and a half months ago; > >I'm only appending the first couple screenfuls (which is maybe a third > >of the original) but you should be able to find the original email given > >the headers and this text. > I don't have a high opinion of GTK either. Honestly, I never did, but my > opinion is subjective rather than objective. I never bothered to learn GTK > to a great extent. I knew enough "back in the day" to hack the gnome-panel > and add a new option or two that Gnome did not have, and I kept my changes > to myself. That was the extent of my interest. Generally, I have a low > opinion of UI kits because the designers tend to be horribly inconsistent. > After GTK3 was released, I knew it was on the downhill slide. They should > have started over from the ground up, kept it generic, and added support for > Qt desktop integration. GTK has basically become part of Gnome, and no one > of consequence except Gnome uses it. > [snip] > Now then, as for Roger's comments, I find them confusing.
Probably because my comments threw you off as to what he's talking about. The post in question is entirely about the problems with GTK. > >[snip] > > > >The C API is overly complex and fragile. You don't want to base your > >project on a sandcastle. And the expertise required to use it is > >very high. Implementing dynamic typing and manual vtable construction > >rather than using C++ which does proper type checking? Just use C++! > > > C and C++ are both strongly typed, so I am assuming that he must be > referring to GTK using a pointer in C presumably to dynamically handle > function names and data for polymorphism. He can't help it if GTK is > sloppy, but I can't make sense of his grievance either. Type checking is > never C's job, it's his! That is explicit in the design of the language. > Everyone who uses C knows that. C++ is the same for that matter. Neither > language checks your variable data for type. > >In fact, you have to be an expert in C++ compiler internals just to be > >able to understand and use it effectively. > > > >[snip] > > > That's somewhat true, but if you write C++ code PROPERLY - i.e. make sure > you references are clean, resources released, and you aren't leaving any > hanging exceptions, what he is claiming is pretty much a non-issue in the > context of any OOP language. A C++ compiler is no more mysterious that any > of the other OOP crap we are forced to endure. C++ code is simply not as > robust as C. You can mitigate a lot of the annoyance; like exceptions > that cause premature exits - but you are never really rid of it. "it" != "C++"; "it" == "GTK". The assertion is that GTK avoids using C++ by forcing the programmer to essentially do what they would do in C++ *and* what C++ would do for them. Hope this makes it a little clearer, Isaac _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng