What is Digg?48 Comments
- ptFoe, on 07/16/2008, -5/+40There is a lot of truth behind what he wrote. But with Miguel you don't know if there is a secret motive to stall Gnome, or introduce Mono into the core for 3.0.
- dualscreenman, on 07/16/2008, -7/+33I saw nothing relating to Microsoft in his post-- nothing that would push Gnome/GTK into Microsoft's hands. Just because he may have gotten in bed with Microsoft doesn't mean all his ideas and opinions are evil.
Maybe the worst side effect of boycott Novell is the blinding to objectivity/separation between good and evil many of its readers receive. - p3ngwin, on 07/16/2008, -2/+13shaved and......
are you preparing them for a meal or something ?? - Fedaykin311, on 07/16/2008, -3/+12What really needs to happen is the bastardized C OO hacks that are the foundation of GTK need to go, which means GTK needs to be rewritten from scratch with a language that has the features they want to use.
GTK is the canonical WTF of trying to fit a round peg into a square hole with a pile driver. If you bloody need OO features, use a language that has them, don't try to hack in OO support. - bvdeenen, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9I've programmed apps in both, and the difference in elegance of the two frameworks is staggering. There's really no contest. The core ideas of Qt (the 'signals' and 'slots') in the C++ header file is a very elegant way to hook up different objects. Gtk feels dated.
- Armen138, on 07/16/2008, -1/+10i don't like the Gtk+ API, so any proposal to clean it up sounds like a good idea to me.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8Actually, Miguel is in love with MS and even applied for a job there.
- Ademan, on 07/16/2008, -1/+8Disclaimer: I hardly deserve to have an opinion, I'm just an occasional user of Gtk+ who thinks he knows what's best for it.
Anywho, my first comment is simply that you shouldn't need clear benefits for cleaning up an API outside of having a cleaner API, it's necessary to clean house sometimes, most long running libraries break compatibility when it's clear change is needed.
This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, but I want glib to burn, or at least evolve. In its current state glib helps developers to cope with C's deficiencies, but does little else, and requires tons of boilerplate and generally awkward code to use. I propose that Gtk+ either does away with glib or uses it for more useful purposes. One example might be a uniform configuration system, with the reflection provided by glib, application configuration systems could be unified and made simple to code.
Another thing I've seen mentioned (it might have been in the original proposal) is a move to a MVC architecture. I certainly think that sort of thing would be useful, decoupling the user interface from the data it operates on. Some would argue Glade and GtkBuilder already address this, however I think much more could be done to separate them, which could open up the possibility of totally customizable user interfaces.
I think I've begun to ramble, and it is kinda late, but there are a couple of thoughts i wanted to get out. - bizzel, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7Any proposal that draws attention to GTK and the possibility of a thorough cleanup is a good proposal in my book. Regardless of it's true state, the public perception of GTK 2.x is that it's cluttered and unwieldy compared to QT. Whether that's true or not, I'm not able to say but GTK needs to keep moving forward to retain its popularity and provide a worthy competitor to QT. It'd be a real shame to see it stagnate.
- santasing, on 07/16/2008, -34/+40This guy won't be happy till he sees a Microsoft EULA everytime we boot up Linux.
- sirhomer, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5What would be cool is if someone who is for GTK+ 3.0 as it is proposed wrote his/her opinion and the developers and users can decide. :)
My opinion is that GTK+ 3.0 _should_ clean up the API, and add new features like the Scene Graph / Animation that's being developed. It should be done in a way that can balance performance and code maintainability while making it somewhat trival to port a GTK+ 2.0 to 3.0 i.e. don't mess with the API too much, only where it makes sense. - n00bian, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6which only tells you how good the builders are - nothing else
- Artz, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Obviously you are not a fan of Southpark.
- inactive, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Yes, but the Gnome development is just too slow, really really slow. It would take years for them to really implement this changes. Also, most of the things that gnome lacks are not a GTK problem, is a philosophy problem, and I say this as a Gnome user. For example, you can't even compare Nautilus to the Windows explorer which is 7+ years old now (XP version). We need scripts for it to work more or less like you would expect it too in this day and age.
KDE used to be bloated and "confusing" to some, but with the new release they have addressed that, the kickoff menu is an example. You can always go to the messy classic version of the menu but kickoff is cleaner and smoother. Gnome has to start listening to their users. - arjie, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6Madness?! This is ICAZA!
- Gatesophile, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4Damn, all sorts of Miguel hate going on here. I, personally, love the man.
- Kamujin, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Don't worry. Those people can't see the world in anything but black and white. Since the rest of us know its gray, just pity them and their frustrated existence.
Miguel seems to be a decent enough guy with a practical approach to problem solving. - cornflakepirate, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3GTK+ is written in C in the object-oriented style for a very good reason - to make bindings easier to implement. If you personally don't like C, just use gtkmm, or the python bindings, or whatever.
As for "hacking in OO support", what GObject does isn't a hack - for example the implementation of virtual methods in GObject is more or less exactly the same as what a C++ compiler would do behind the scenes. - AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Since when has the goal of open source been to deride or defeat anybody but the usability problems of open source?
- slowsloth, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Yeah, but remember that his company pushed a lot of upgrades into GTK# and *not* into GTK+. So, basically, what he is trying to do is protect the ***** they did to make GTK# more attractive than GTK+.
- humbled, on 07/16/2008, -3/+5I read the post. I think his complaints are legitimate. Mono already has GTK# bindings, so I think it's safe to remove the tinfoil hat for this instance.
- inactive, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Apparently this Miguel guy did (*shrugs shoulders*)...
Nobody really knows what the hell he did with it though. - phatboye, on 07/16/2008, -6/+8please no more forks. The open source community needs unite if it ever wants to conquer MS.
- UKsHaDoW, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Complex c++ applications require a lot more planning, then C applications. C is more forgiving.
Plus the developer will have to create his own algorithms, while in other languages they are built in.
So newbie develepers might go with slow О(n²) algorithms then the faster alternatives for example.
Overall making the program A LOT slower then c# or the Java equivalent.
Remember its algorithms that make the program slow not the language. - sbin, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Maybe the C part should move a bit to the "background" as in: not be the underlying native language for the GTK dev. platform. However it should _keep being supported_, I would guess through the language bindings for GTK.
Sure the C OO model is inconvenient since there are ready solutions. However it's is a great proof of concept for what it is: an add-on object-model for a non-OO language. And there is no good reason to discard all the work that's been done so far.
GTK has shown through their language bindings how easy it would be to develop for it using a real OO language.
So yes, I agree that using one as the native GTK language instead of just a wrapper would make a world of difference.
However, right now, this is what GTK is, an OO toolkit built on a non-OO language. People who want to go with an OO toolkit built on a OO language can easily just go with KDE.
This freedom of choice is what makes OSS so great. - Giga, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2In South Park, they were chocolate...
- sirhomer, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2You can define objects in C using the struct keyword. Members in structs can even be functions, function pointers. In fact, function pointers offer a great deal of power that takes a lot of code in other languages, they can be changed at runtime. CPython's dictionary implementation is a good example of what can be accomplished with function pointers. In fact the Linux kernel's driver model is heavily object oriented, using recursive structs to easily define an efficient tree structure.
Languages like C++, Java, etc were designed around the idea that programmers are retards and need built in protections to prevent them from ***** with the programs state - but this incurs overhead, and makes the program more bloated, and adds a great deal to the overall complexity of the language. But it makes it easier to not make retarded mistakes - i.e. it's a form of child protection.
Obviousally there are a lot of truly stupid people programming, and we needs languages that cater to them in order for the World to basically not implode into a big glob of ***** code. But I wouldn't encourage it, especially for something like GTK+, which needs to be fast, small, and easily maintained. GTK+ should stay C. - sloppychris, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Solution is to fork that comment.
- Fergy, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2KDE 3.5 is bloated and confusing to even windows power users where Gnome is easy to use and understand in a few minutes. The thing that makes KDE 4 less bloated and confusing is the borrowing of Gnome ideas and looks.
I would love a Firefox-like extension system for Gnome. - tripzero, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2C# is an ISO standard (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_ ... ). Yes it was developed by microsoft. C++ was developed at Bell Labs (AT&T) which is no friend to freedom either. Miguel saw how productive of a language C# is and decided to implement a free and open implementation of the standard. Mono heavily depends on gtk+ (wrapped in gtk#) for it's graphical, of course he cares for it's direction.
Stop the hate brothers, You don't have to code in c#, c++ or anything else. And you don't need to use Banshee, Tomboy, or any app developed in it. If you want to stick to your guns, you may as well not use any application written in c++ or c for that matter (also developed at Bell) which includes the Linux Kernel. If you want all your cake, you better be willing to eat it all. - inactive, on 07/16/2008, -4/+5Solution is to fork it , let him do whatever and take it in a new direction
- directrix13, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2@p3ngwin:
Awesome... just awesome. - humbled, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1slowsloth, good point. Thanks for the reminder.
- DreadKnight, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2Just use qt.
- inactive, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0Check STL and Boost. C++ is no longer from scratch.
- inactive, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3I use gnome everyday. Still I wish more FLOSS contributers knew C++. (Let the flames begin!)
- UKsHaDoW, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2He is founder of gnome. If you type his name in google, he pops up in newspapers and everywhere.
so yes he is - Giga, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0No, what makes KDE 4 less bloated is the fact that it is a rewrite and has most of the stuff missing.
- Wakuko, on 07/16/2008, -7/+7He is a damn traitor, he sold his soul to M$
Miguel, you can come suck my recently shaved and salty balls! - inactive, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1Of course the programmer is responsible for the final result. If the builder is brain dead, and they invariably are, they should be avoided.
- dooooo, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2The guys want "Improved back-ends, more OS integration" .
So , why not JAVA :) - Wakuko, on 07/16/2008, -5/+3Open source community also needs to remove bad apples before they do more damage.
FORK!
and ***** miguel - Vegiemaster, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2This is madness!
- geno24, on 07/16/2008, -7/+4what? someone found a gnome?
- drlha, on 07/16/2008, -11/+7Don't like the message, attack the messenger. Lovely.
- inactive, on 07/16/2008, -9/+1GUI builders are for retards. They compromise program physical design. Builder UI windows rarely resize with any sanity. None of the important programs on you Gnome system uses them. That should tip you off.
- inactive, on 07/16/2008, -14/+5MdI is a C# fanboi. He has long ceased to be an opinion leader. Qt4 is a utter piece of crap! I am subjected to it every day. Macro-based slots and signals? Template based slots an signals have only been around for 10 years (see libsigc++). No support for namespaces, templates? Bloatware in the extreme.
- rolosworld, on 07/16/2008, -14/+5is this guy some how important?
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is