On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:19:47PM +0200, David Faure wrote: > On Wednesday 23 July 2003 06:43, Linas Vepstas wrote: > > Do you actually have a proposal for something better? > > Yes - what about splitting glib? IMHO it's fine to have a lib that provides > linked lists and other containers, for C programs and libraries (if it is indeed > proven that low-level libraries like Xr, freetype or Xft will want to use it). > > But declaring as "standard" a library that patches up an incomplete home-made object > concept on top of a language that doesn't support objects, is nonsense: if people > want to use objects, they have a real OO programming language for that: C++. You could, of course, argue that C++ isn't real OO, and that everyone should be using Java. ;) > Between this and the "LSB wants to standardize on GTK" news, it's a bit difficult > not to see political agendas being pushed.... Can we stick to the old status quo > instead of trying to push our technical solutions as "standard"? I am starting > to think that the old way worked much better for this list: we discussed shared > specs, not shared code, and there was no such heated debate. It's only really political if you make it so. C seems to be the lowest common denominator, so as much as I'd like to see everything done nicely in C++, I doubt htat's going to happen, so I'm happy to standardize on a toolkit which does a decent job of doing everything in C. > PS: I do not speak for Trolltech despite my (possibly misleading) e-mail address, > I am writing this as a KDE developer. I'm writing this as a person who used to hack on KDE for a while. -- Daniel Stone <daniel fooishbar org> http://www.kde.org - http://www.debian.org - http://www.xwin.org "Configurability is always the best choice when it's pretty simple to implement" -- Havoc Pennington, gnome-list
Attachment:
pgp00004.pgp
Description: PGP signature