On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 06:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:36:21PM +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote: > > > > Samuel Abels: > > > > > As nice as Ardour may be, I personaly still prefer the interfaces of > > > > > modern UI toolkits, in combination with a nice Object Oriented language > > > > > (aka C++ :) ). > > > > > > > > If you want to write C++, why do you want GTK??? Use a C++-toolkit like Qt. > > > > > > Despite the fact that this is often discussed as a matter of religion, I > > > prefer gtkmm because it fits better into the GNOME environment. > > > > > > Also, this is from the gtkmm-documentation: > > > > > > http://www.murrayc.com/murray/talks/2002/GUADEC3/notes/html/index.html#id2759245 > > > > > > "QT originates from a time when C++ was not standardised or well > > > supported by compilers. Its design today is still based upon the choices > > > available at that time, so it does not play well with more up-to-date > > > code. Development of QT is still effectively closed - There is still no > > > public development mailing list, and TrollTech have the normal corporate > > > conservatism. As an open-source project, its design would have been > > > improved through public debate, and it would have been possible to > > > jettison the baggage. > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > So, in essence, gtkmm does it in a more C++ way. :-) (But please let us > > > not make this a flame; may everyone be free to choose whatever toolkit > > > he likes best. ;) ) > > > > > > Then my question becomes: > > > > Why on earth use C++? Use a desent high-level non-crippled language like > > lisp, python or ruby. The lowlevel stuff must of course be written in > > c/c++ or something, but only a very small amount of multitracker-code is > > that low-level. Yes, I have made _huge_ programs in C myself, but that was > > only because I was so damned inexperienced and had so damned slow machine > > to work on at the time. > > > > C++ is crippled?! > > > Today, where there are so many descent libraries for > > lisp/python/ruby/ada(?)/etc(?), and the machines are so fast, > > as good as no one should use c++ for high-level things. You'll > > waste time. > > > > Should people have to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware all > the time because programmers want to use the new slow-ass > resource-hogging Scripting Language Of The Day to write their apps? > Because they didn't want to "waste time?" > > > Yes, this might start a flame-war, but I really think people > > should be aware of the C/C++-stupidness. > > > > > > -- > > Too late, I hereby flame you.
Yeah, what he said!
