Re: Steps to get to GTK+ 3.0

[Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:18:45 -0400
Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:57 +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> 
> > Rather than calling my suggestions silly, why don't you actually try
> > to explain how the non-preprocessed, dynamic-only GLib property design
> > is superior to the Qt design (or at least not inferior), or describe
> > these specific reasons that you are talking about?
> 
> because i really don't give a damn. i don't use GTK+, i use gtkmm, and
> there is no feature of Qt that i ever find lacking. although Qt has
> closed the gap, for a long time it was the poor cousin of gtkmm when it
> came to type-safety, integration with the STL and more. i'm really not
> all that interested in what happens at the GObject level, other than
> that it maps into a decently performing layer by the time i interact
> with it at the C++ level. i also don't want to see glib/gobject
> developers wasting time trying to do what C++ plus a preprocessor does
> in plain C or C plus Yet Another PreProcessor.

You didn't get the point. As explained in my initial message, a
preprocessor would be used to fix the performance of the property
system. Ease of use is not the main goal, it's only a secondary
benefit. As you might know, Qt is implemented in plain C++, and
nevertheless uses a preprocessor (moc).

-- 
Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@xxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: pgptnH6LDYxep.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list