Thanks for all of the replies. I learnd a lot from it. Compare to many people here, I am freshman in GTK/GTKmm. I make this proposal just because sometimes I miss the day when I am using QT/Android/HTML5. Now I will put these toolkits into the fields they athlete at. Each of them could be great, in diffinerent situation, different goal, even in different philosophy. Thanks again, I will continue learning GTK/GTKmm. Sent from MEIZU MX -------- Original Message -------- From：Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Time：Fri 8/8 22:47 To：黄羽众 <ihyzi@xxxxxxx> Cc：Florian Pelz <pelzflorian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx Subject：Re: Would it be possible that gtk implementation in C++ >On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:06 PM, 黄羽众 <ihyzi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Thank you for point out predecessors' question! >> >> I read the question and get some points, but I thinks the situtations >> change a lot and I am not ask the same question. >> >> 1. I am not ask for why GTK choose to implement in C, I know it have some >> historical reason. I want to make a proposal that gtk could be re-written >> with c++ just as GCC does. I want to discuss with you whether it is a good >> idea. >> > >yet somehow you missed the most critical reason. historically, perhaps, one >could consider that things like pygtk did not exist. currently they do. >creating such bindings with the core implementation in C++ is challenging. >thus the sort of move you are suggesting would make the continued support >of languages like python more difficult. > >in addition, you seem concerned about app developers, but app developers do >not (as a rule) develop Gtk+. They develop their own apps, and they are >free to use gtkmm, just as I've done with Ardour for the last 12 years. Do >I care that "in fact" Gtk+ is implemented in C? Well, yes, a bit but that >is mostly because I have a very demanding application and portability goals >that force me to occasionally work on Gtk+ itself. If I were writing a >simpler application (and other than a modern web browser or a kernel, >almost all apps are simpler than Ardour :), gtkmm would be entirely >adequate and as an app developer, I would be using a C++ GUI toolkit. And >if I wanted to write my own new widgets, I could, and do it much more >easily than in C. You say: > > >> . Although there are gtkmm available, but gtkmm didn't gain enough >> official support and recommend as GTK, and much fewer reference, help, >> support available. The official recommand is gtk in c rather than gtkmm in >> c++, so many devlopers read some tutorials and feel threatened and leave. >> What's worse, gtkmm didn't wrapper all of the gtk featurese. In some >> complex cases, developers have to use the low level gobj pointer to get >> things done. >> > >ALthough the final point is true, it isn't common. As for documentation and >the rest, I've always found that once I made the decision to use gtkmm, >what existed was adequate (support, tutorials, etc). > > >> Now is in 2014, It can't be more normal to develop GUI application with >> OOP style. I think it's time to change. >> > >If you're really so concerned with it being 2014, I'm not sure why you're >considering using Gtk+ at all. I don't have an alternative to suggest, but >it is a remarkably dated GUI toolkit in many ways. Not all though. > > >> >> GTK could be rewritten in C++, >> > >But will not be. Find something more productive to put your energy into.
_______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
