On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 06:58:04PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote: > > Yes, I figured it was something along those lines. As I mentioned > in a previous email, my experience with GTK has been mercifully > small. I can certainly understand why you would get annoyed. I'm > something of a C aficionado so using pointers to do this does not > bother me, but that said, it is very to make a mistake. > > >This is work which the C++ compiler would have done for me, with > >no added complexity, and no chance for me to introduce bugs into > >the overly complex mess. On top of that, the C++ class would be > >completely type-safe in all respects where the GType system > >requires allmost all type safety to be discarded to implement > >polymorphism. > > > I apologize for the confusion on my part. I see what you meant. > When people say the phrase "type-safe" in relation to C/C++ I'm left > to wonder.
Suggesting that GTK would be easy to handle via a binding to a truly strongly-typed language, where the binding provides the static typing and careful memory management that's hard to see in the C version of GTK. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
