4 ms·
Shudder. I remember looking st this 15 years ago, and it's a cruel joke. I understand why writing in C made multilingual bindings easy, but the ergonomics of GO
by jonathankoren 9y ago
Shudder. I remember looking st this 15 years ago, and it's a cruel joke. I understand why writing in C made multilingual bindings easy, but the ergonomics of GObject are horrible. You're stuck doing all the crap that real OO type system does, setting up vtables and what not. Most insulting, they dismiss(ed) all complaints as mere "syntactic sugar".
Ironically, I liked GTk+ back when I was doing that kind of stuff.
- chris_wot 9y agoIt's an entire portable object system. It does more than I suspect you think it does!
- jonathankoren 9y agoI think it does none of it in a way that's easy to use.
- tsarfox 9y agoI agree. Using GTK+ for a small personal project made me realize just how unwieldy GObject is. Vala was a nice alternative, in my opinion, but it seems that everyone is trying to kill it off nowadays.
- narrator 9y agoI also looked at gtk c++ programming in the late 90s and was disturbed by GTK--, the c++ binding at the time. The library used extensive template meta-programming that was so ugly that it made me give up on c++ as a language. The error mestages the compiler would vomit were often many lines long and took considerable time to decipher.
- pjmlp 9y agoGtkmm was what made GNOME programming a sane alternative to Qt, back in the day of the license wars. It was that template meta-programming that allowed us to offer the same event handling capabilities as Qt, without having language extensions based on an external tool like moc.
- gkya 9y agoNowadays there's Vala which is a C# like language compiled to C+GObject.