tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203063759820106893.post3561252880770819595..comments2023-03-25T08:30:26.602-04:00Comments on A Moment of Zen: Gtk+ 3.0: The Things That Make You Go "Hmmm?"Jeffrey Stedfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12271561115384429651noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203063759820106893.post-88111887787390110362008-07-17T19:18:00.000-04:002008-07-17T19:18:00.000-04:00@markus>> I for one see web apps being devel...@markus<BR/>>> I for one see web apps being developed in an awesome AND easy fashion<BR/><BR/>Huh? Awesome and easy? You must have never done a web app before. Web apps are awful and mind numbingly stupid compared to building desktop apps. Unless you're just targeting one browser, that is.Leo Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02951281972056927807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203063759820106893.post-31892426468268525822008-07-17T10:10:00.000-04:002008-07-17T10:10:00.000-04:00wdomburg: well, sort of...The problem is also that...wdomburg: well, sort of...<BR/><BR/>The problem is also that some of the features they plan on adding post-3.0 (because, let's face it, no one is going to port to 3.0 just for sealed structs) can be added now, w/o API/ABI breakage to 2.x.<BR/><BR/>Adding them to 2.x means that application developers can get more features w/o having to port their code again.<BR/><BR/>The other problem with the 3.0 proposal so far is that no one has taken the time to figure out what the API should look like for the only new feature that has been hinted at that will require API/ABI breakage (scene graph) and so it's impossible to guarantee that sealing the structs is all the API/ABI breakage that is required to add this new feature.<BR/><BR/>The fear is that the Scene Graph functionality that is being considered will require yet another API/ABI break after 3.0 which just means app developers will again need to spend time porting their apps (to Gtk 4.0) just a few short years after 3.0.<BR/><BR/>It's best to minimize API/ABI breakage to as few times as possible (to minimize wasted time/effort porting, aggravation of application developers/ISVs, etc). If there is a good chance that Gtk will have to break API/ABI /again/ in just a few years, why break it now? It'd be better to wait a few more years and only break it when it is absolutely needed.Jeffrey Stedfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12271561115384429651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203063759820106893.post-63979659616037538262008-07-17T09:38:00.000-04:002008-07-17T09:38:00.000-04:00One reason that ISV's are typically on-board with ...<I>One reason that ISV's are typically on-board with Microsoft is that Microsoft has gone to great lengths to maintain backward compatibility with their old APIs.</I><BR/><BR/>This strikes me as a reason to keep gtk+-2.0 libraries in the distros; not an argument against making an ABI incompatible gtk+-3.0.<BR/><BR/>I've only been marginally following this discussion, but what I understand of the plan is reasonable enough. The proposal is to just drop deprecated features and close off private interfaces people largely shouldn't have used in the first place, right? So porting should be nothing like the 1.2 -> 2.0 transition.<BR/><BR/>Of course my view may be tainted by how much time I've spent this week trying to migrate a tangle of legacy services that rely on abandoned interfaces noone supports or fully understands any more.wdomburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09011510563653401940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203063759820106893.post-7442404075458739552008-07-17T08:58:00.000-04:002008-07-17T08:58:00.000-04:00Of course there are projects, wich are and will no...Of course there are projects, wich are and will not be ported to a newer platform. Have always been.<BR/><BR/>Now, I think, not matter people whine and bitch about it, that it is now important to break the api/abi and let gtk+2 and gtk+3 coexist. Making gtk+3 is a rare possibility to do some refactoring to make it possible to add new functionality in the future while maintaining a clean api.<BR/><BR/>In other words, break it now so you don't have to break in the near future. <BR/><BR/>Stubbornly hanging on to the gtk+2 is just not healthy for the toolkit and making 3.0 doesn't render the programs made for 2.0 unusable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203063759820106893.post-22181616848140770912008-07-17T07:47:00.000-04:002008-07-17T07:47:00.000-04:00Not just that. They are going to break the ABI wit...Not just that. They are going to break the ABI without knowing what features they want to add, or what those features will need in their new interface. It's like they are shooting in the dark at a mob of brain-eating zombies, but only managing to shoot the ground, and hoping not to hit their collective feet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203063759820106893.post-79935672807806162232008-07-17T07:42:00.000-04:002008-07-17T07:42:00.000-04:00You make it sound as if GTK 3.0 can exist easily a...You make it sound as if GTK 3.0 can exist easily as "natural" evolution from 2.0.<BR/><BR/>So why is there any discussion at all for a GTK 3.0 if there are no problems in GTK 2.0?<BR/><BR/>I for one see web apps being developed in an awesome AND easy fashion, and I must tell you that I think there are problems with the graphical toolkits. Most specifically they require WAY too much effort to create EASY and nice applications, even if one uses to rely ruby or python instead of C... ;-)shevyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09636171104216432368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203063759820106893.post-56912475063179720372008-07-17T03:16:00.000-04:002008-07-17T03:16:00.000-04:00I have to point out that there are still apps that...I have to point out that there are still apps that use GTK+ 1 and there are some that will never be ported to GTK+ 2 (or 3).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203063759820106893.post-79033566946286284732008-07-17T02:01:00.000-04:002008-07-17T02:01:00.000-04:00I'm glad to hear that Gtk# isn't going down road. ...I'm glad to hear that Gtk# isn't going down road. I cannot help but think this kind of shit is why Linux never seems to stabilize. Even Microsoft lets us get off the tread me and catch our breath once in awhile.<BR/><BR/>Jonathan Allen<BR/><A HREF="http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/07/Gtk-Compatibility" REL="nofollow">InfoQ</A>Jonathan Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16213908463228592960noreply@blogger.com