Re: New 'GObject' as base for GtkObject?

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Bill Huey <billh@burn.ucsd.edu> writes:
> Well, part of *allowing* yourself to be convince by it and to actually
> look at other *modern* object systems. 

Java and C++ are primitive and pathetic next to a modern functional
language according to many people. However there are issues to
consider other than the merits of a language design.

> The current system is just plain
> barbaric. Anybody with any experience outside of X and Gtk would make
> the same comments.
> 

Apparently not, because I have substantial C++ experience and have at
least written a few little GUI things in Java, and most everyone on
this list has similar relevant experience. For example Shawn knows his
Java and also his BeOS, two very modern OO systems.

Furthermore IIRC Smalltalk is not much newer than X and already had
most of the "modern" OO GUI ideas you are talking about. They are not
new and not a big revelation to anyone here. Moreover once you get
past syntactic issues and look at functionality GTK+ is much more in
the rich-dynamic-object-system spirit of Java and Smalltalk than most
"modern" C++ toolkits are. Interfaces are the only thing it really
lacks, and those are indeed being added because people realize it's
important.
 
If you don't like GTK+ then please get off this list and write your
own toolkit, or use someone else's. Clearly "your toolkit sucks,
rewrite it" is not a productive thread on gtk-devel-list.

Now I'm going to try to figure out how killfiles work in Gnus...

Havoc