On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:30 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:51:18 +0100 > Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 19:44 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > > > > > > I don't want to start a flame war over old hat, but statements like this > > > > shouldn't go unchallenged. GLib/GTK+ chose a different technology as a > > > > base than Qt did (C vs. C++, and no pre-processing source versus > > > > preprocessing source). > > > > > > Different, and inferior. > > > > thank you for your interesting and well-detailed take on the design of > > GLib and GObject. > > Maybe you should also filter out arbitrary words from quotes, it would > certainly allow for even more brilliant jokes.
the problem is that it was established years ago that your position of "different and inferior" was an opinion, and one not universally held by all developers, even those with substantial experience of both technologies. therefore, its a bit silly to suggest that one technology should be evolving to match the design of the other, when there are specific reasons why they differ, and when many people believe that they should continue to differ. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
