On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:18:45 -0400 Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com> 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 brutele be>
Attachment:
pgpyCMCPVihbu.pgp
Description: PGP signature