A GNOME 3.0 plan [LWN.net]

A GNOME 3.0 plan

Posted Apr 5, 2009 3:50 UTC (Sun) by Ze (guest, #54182)
In reply to: A GNOME 3.0 plan by drag
Parent article: A GNOME 3.0 plan

>>Seeing how GTK exists in C right now, and it is already written, then I don't really see the benefit in rewriting it for the sake of using C++. Your not saving any time, your not saving any effort. In fact it would require a huge amount of effort, and years before you would even get back to the same level that you are already at.

Yes it'd be more work to rewrite the library than to use the existing one but that is always true. The whole point is that GTK+ is a horrible hack to write object oriented code in it. It takes far longer than using gtkmm and that is only slightly less ugly.

The fact is that c shouldn't be the implementation language ,it should be just another binding.

Ideally we'd end up with a C++ as the implementation language with bindings for other languages and GTK+ v2 compatibability library.

(Log in to post comments)

C as OO

Posted Apr 5, 2009 6:20 UTC (Sun) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]

While it's true that writing OO code longhand in C might take up more characters than the same program written in C++, most of the time we spend coding isn't spent typing. The difference is immaterial. Personally, I'd prefer C++, but there's something to be said for writing in the linga franca, C.

C as OO

Posted Apr 6, 2009 1:07 UTC (Mon) by Ze (guest, #54182) [Link]

>>While it's true that writing OO code longhand in C might take up more characters than the same program written in C++, most of the time we spend coding isn't spent typing. The difference is immaterial. Personally, I'd prefer C++, but there's something to be said for writing in the linga franca, C.
It's got a lot more to do than just the typing. It's all the type safety and general model. GObject is a PITA and deserves to die a quick death (to save the rest of us poor souls from using it).