3 ms·
It's silly to discard GTK as overcomplicated because it is designed for more than "a few buttons and some text". Surely the author's JSON idea would end up in t
by dylan-m 8y ago
It's silly to discard GTK as overcomplicated because it is designed for more than "a few buttons and some text". Surely the author's JSON idea would end up in the same place. After all, it's a GUI toolkit that is going to be serving the needs of many different applications; just in the flavour of the month, instead of a shared library. (And as far as GUI toolkits are concerned, GTK generally strikes me as quite modest. It has a lot of widgets, but they aren't terribly redundant, and it doesn't have stuff like an analog clock widget for that one developer who wanted an analog clock. And the odd ones that are there, like the different kinds of buttons, are pretty transparent quality-of-life helpers where it's clear how to make your own if you want).
With that said, nobody cares about GObject Introspection in OCaml. So unless you want to maintain that, you're stuck with an ancient wrapper library for GTK2, which is pretty sad. I definitely would avoid it.
If we're going to discard GTK for a reason that isn't "I probably picked the wrong language", I'd add that it's challenging to target non-"Linux" platforms with it, but then your best option for that is Qt, and if you pick Qt you probably aren't using OCaml…
So I can see where he's coming from, at least for OCaml, but, uh, JSON?
- JasonFruit 8y agoIt's not obvious to me: why wouldn't someone using OCaml use QT? I see some bindings; is there something that makes QT less appropriate than GTK, e.g. C++ vs. C?
- dylan-m 8y agoActually, looking back at it: I've been living under a rock and oblivious to how successful Qt Quick has been :b Before I lost the plot, Qt relied on a lot of C++ particulars (and they used to recommend their own precompiler for some features), so it was trickier to work with it from other languages. Some of that has been improved over the years, and it has a simpler surface nowadays with Qt Quick, so, yes, use Qt!
- flukus 8y ago> I see some bindings; is there something that makes QT less appropriate than GTK Qt has a long history of bindings coming and going to the point where I wouldn't trust any of them to last unless they come from the qt team themselves. Couple this with c++ making binary compatibility much harder (https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issu...) and you've got a recipe for frustration.