Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan \"WTF\"?)

Roger, I haven't had a chance, but I wanted to thank you for your insights regarding C++ last month. I've not used it as a "main language" in some time. I was coding in C++ long before smart pointers were introduced. Old habits die hard I suppose. Your comments made me reconsider many thin

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015, Didier Kryn wrote: > >I encountered this principle long ago when I got involved in the > >design and implementation of Algol 68 -- they deliberately violated it > >with one feature -- they decided that everyone would pay the price of > >a procedure calling mechanism that suppor

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

Le 25/07/2015 20:55, Hendrik Boom a écrit : ... >This really >violates the standing principle of "paying for only what you use." I encountered this principle long ago when I got involved in the design and implementation of Algol 68 -- they deliberately violated it with one feature -- they decid

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

Oh I agree Henrik, but like all things, there is a time and place for it. It is a good principle to keep in mind even when you break it when designing a language because it avoids "feature creep" which is something that has become far too prevalent in software, especially today. I consider OOP to

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:36:47PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote: > > > On 7/25/2015 5:26 AM, Roger Leigh wrote: ... ... > This really > violates the standing principle of "paying for only what you use." I encountered this principle long ago when I got involved in the design and implementation of A

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 7/25/2015 5:26 AM, Roger Leigh wrote: In C++ this simply doesn't happen; upcasting is completely transparent, downcasting with dynamic_cast is completely safe. This can lead to long standing latent bugs in the codebase that are well hidden. What you describe is the result of poor des

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:23:49 +0200 Jaromil wrote: > personally a fan of FLTK which I really recommend, worthed mentioning > in this thread I guess. Thank's for reminding me about FLTK. I learned about FLTK a year ago from a Debian-User inhabitant who had used it to create an exhibition no-dbus

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

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

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015, Roger Leigh wrote: > And later they made an incompatible break with GtkBuilder with then > with GTK+3, which was the final straw in dropping GTK+ for good. the glitches you mention and some others were coming up in my experience and this nonchalance in breaking backward comp

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 25/07/2015 10:23, Jaromil wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Roger Leigh wrote: I imagine the reason why Glib was written in C is because binding to other languages is easier with C than C++. I expect so. C is fairly straightforward. This was certainly the original intent. But having used the

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 24/07/2015 23:58, T.J. Duchene wrote: On 7/24/2015 3:57 AM, Roger Leigh wrote: First, thank you for the reply, Roger. I supremely appreciate it. The C++ compiler objectively does a better job here. It's simpler, quicker to write, safer, easier to refactor. And when I've done a full conv

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Roger Leigh wrote: > >>I imagine the reason why Glib was written in C is because binding to > >>other languages is easier with C than C++. > >> > >I expect so. C is fairly straightforward. > > This was certainly the original intent. But having used the bindings, > my experie

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

Le 25/07/2015 03:38, Joel Roth a écrit : Constructors and destructors are a helpful convention to ensure objects get initialized and cleaned up properly. For me this is the major utility of objects. Anyway encapsulation and generics do not belong to OOP. In the Ada programs I have wri

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

Le 25/07/2015 09:18, Didier Kryn a écrit : Le 25/07/2015 01:57, Roger Leigh a écrit : This really only applies to the grandfathered-in C numeric types subset of C++. As soon as you use or own types (or wrap the primitives), you have control over the conversions and can define your own policie

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 7/24/2015 8:38 PM, Joel Roth wrote: Hi T.J. and others, I've been following this thread with some interest. T.J., it seems most of your objections to OOP are not strictly against the principles and advantages of OOP in abstract, but against the way OOP is implemented in C and C++. With

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

T.J. Duchene wrote: > Didier Kryn wrote: > > > >What are your preventions against OOP for graphics? Is it against OOP > >in general? > Mostly against OOP in general. It wasn't a bad idea to start with, but OOP > started out with good intentions and blossomed more into a movement. The > questi

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 7/24/2015 3:57 AM, Roger Leigh wrote: First, thank you for the reply, Roger. I supremely appreciate it. I'm referring to the *GTK* "C API" here. Not C in general. If I create a GObject-based "class", either as a subclass of a GTK class or as an independent class subclassed from the ro

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 24/07/2015 23:24, T.J. Duchene wrote: On 7/24/2015 5:03 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: Hey T.J., you seem to contradict yourself when saying "C and C++ are strongly typed" and "Type checking is never C's job." :-) Actually, yes, C and C++ are typed, but weakly. They silently do type conve

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 7/24/2015 5:03 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: Hey T.J., you seem to contradict yourself when saying "C and C++ are strongly typed" and "Type checking is never C's job." :-) Actually, yes, C and C++ are typed, but weakly. They silently do type conversion in pretty much every instruction.

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:03:08PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote: > > Hey T.J., you seem to contradict yourself when saying "C and C++ > are strongly typed" and "Type checking is never C's job." :-) > > Actually, yes, C and C++ are typed, but weakly. They silently do > type conversion in prett

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:30:04PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote: > On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote: > > > ... but, yeah, it's outside the scope of Devuan. D-Bus just sucks and is > > > documented on a random

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

Le 24/07/2015 07:14, T.J. Duchene a écrit : 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 grie

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 24/07/2015 05:14, T.J. Duchene wrote: On 7/23/2015 10:41 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote: Now then, as for Roger's comments, I find them confusing. [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

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 24/07/2015 06:37, Didier Kryn wrote: Le 24/07/2015 04:52, Jude Nelson a écrit : I don't care for it myself - because it is C++. Minor correction: GTK is written in C, and relies on GLib, which is also written C. However, it's open to debate as to how similar/different C-plus-GLib is t

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

Le 24/07/2015 04:52, Jude Nelson a écrit : On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:30 PM, T.J. Duchene > wrote: On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote: > > ... but, yeah, it's out

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

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

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

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

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:30:04PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote: > On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote: > > > ... but, yeah, it's outside the scope of Devuan. D-Bus just sucks and is > > > documented on a random

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On 7/23/2015 9:52 PM, Jude Nelson wrote: I don't care for it myself - because it is C++. Minor correction: GTK is written in C, and relies on GLib, which is also written C. However, it's open to debate as to how similar/different C-plus-GLib is to C++ in practice. Apologies fo

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:30 PM, T.J. Duchene wrote: > On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote: > > > ... but, yeah, it's outside the scope of Devuan. D-Bus just sucks and > is > > > documented on a random bas

Re: [DNG] GTK (was Will there be a MirDevuan "WTF"?)

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 08:22:55 PM Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Teodoro Santoni wrote: > > ... but, yeah, it's outside the scope of Devuan. D-Bus just sucks and is > > documented on a random basis, when you compare it to the rest of > > GNU/Fedora > > it's...