Re: GObject instantiation hopelessly overcomplicated??

On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 16:43, Ryan McDougall wrote:
> This exercise has really made me appreciate just how much GTK+/GNOME
> need a proper high level language. Its interesting for me to learn about
> this stuff but 90% of application developers cannot be bother with this
> much minutiae.

90% of developers needn't be bothered with this stuff. and for the 10%
that do after you get the general lay of the land and use it all a few
times it makes a lot of sense.

glib, gtk+, and (parts of) gnome pretty much have to be written in C so
that they can be bound to (just about) any other language someone wants.
that does mean they have to deal with a lot of things higher level OO
languages would give them for free. while this complicates things some,
at the same it frees things up to implemented as best can be. as it
stands just about every concept of OO programming is available which is
more than most OO languages can say. What's more is that as new
concepts/patterns emerge if need/desire be they can be incorporated. for
that matter the implementation of OO paradigms  can be improved as
necessary. If you were dependent on the language for OO this wouldn't be
the case.

while i really like (and on occasion want) the freedom that OO in a
non-OO language gives you i can't be bothered to deal with the tedium of
working with it everyday. enter Gtk2-Perl (and many of the other
language bindings) which take all of the bookkeeping work out of the
process. in fact, if you want to see how easy making a subclass in a
higher level language can be, take a look at Gtk2-Perl's
Glib::Object::Subclass. Glib::Object::Subclass deals with most all of
the object type groundwork for you.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]