3 ms·
>Keeping the codebase small and focused makes sense LMFAO. You have not even glanced at insane dumpster fire that is the gnome codebase.
by msgodel 1y ago
>Keeping the codebase small and focused makes sense
LMFAO. You have not even glanced at insane dumpster fire that is the gnome codebase.
- petepete 1y agoRegardless of what it's currently like, supporting fewer things is going to make it easier to maintain.
- msgodel 1y agoIf Gnome cared about an easy to maintain codebase it would be radically different. Gnome's complexity is comparable to a large web browser (which is kind of insane considering how little it really does.)
- const_cast 1y agoTo be completely fair to Gnome, they're doing some stuff that nobody else is doing. The idea of building an entire desktop off the backs of C and the gobject system is very novel and gives Gnome a lot of advantages. For example, it had binding for just about every language under the sun. Compare that to KDE and Qt, which is C++ or bust. Obviously it's a bit hacky and kind of a mess, but it is technically interesting.
- pona-a 1y agoI don't know how things are done in the GTK-land, but Qt definitely has bindings for Python, Go, and others. Maybe GObject has some other advantages, but I don't know.
- const_cast 1y agoKind of, but those binding are incomplete and not all modules are supported. When I say GTK has bindings for every language, I do literally mean every language. It's the nice thing about choosing C as the language to make your entire API in.