On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:14:21AM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:
>
>
> On 7/23/2015 10:41 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> >I'm inclined to agree with you on C++, but I'd like to refer you to Roger
> >Leigh's comments on the subject about seven and a half months ago;
> >I'm only appending the first couple screenfuls (which is maybe a third
> >of the original) but you should be able to find the original email given
> >the headers and this text.
> I don't have a high opinion of GTK either. Honestly, I never did, but my
> opinion is subjective rather than objective. I never bothered to learn GTK
> to a great extent. I knew enough "back in the day" to hack the gnome-panel
> and add a new option or two that Gnome did not have, and I kept my changes
> to myself. That was the extent of my interest. Generally, I have a low
> opinion of UI kits because the designers tend to be horribly inconsistent.
> After GTK3 was released, I knew it was on the downhill slide. They should
> have started over from the ground up, kept it generic, and added support for
> Qt desktop integration. GTK has basically become part of Gnome, and no one
> of consequence except Gnome uses it.
>
[snip]
> Now then, as for Roger's comments, I find them confusing.

Probably because my comments threw you off as to what he's talking
about.
The post in question is entirely about the problems with GTK.

> >[snip]
> >
> >The C API is overly complex and fragile. You don't want to base your
> >project on a sandcastle. And the expertise required to use it is
> >very high. Implementing dynamic typing and manual vtable construction
> >rather than using C++ which does proper type checking? Just use C++!
> >
> C and C++ are both strongly typed, so I am assuming that he must be
> referring to GTK using a pointer in C presumably to dynamically handle
> function names and data for polymorphism. He can't help it if GTK is
> sloppy, but I can't make sense of his grievance either. Type checking is
> never C's job, it's his! That is explicit in the design of the language.
> Everyone who uses C knows that. C++ is the same for that matter. Neither
> language checks your variable data for type.

> >In fact, you have to be an expert in C++ compiler internals just to be
> >able to understand and use it effectively.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> That's somewhat true, but if you write C++ code PROPERLY - i.e. make sure
> you references are clean, resources released, and you aren't leaving any
> hanging exceptions, what he is claiming is pretty much a non-issue in the
> context of any OOP language. A C++ compiler is no more mysterious that any
> of the other OOP crap we are forced to endure. C++ code is simply not as
> robust as C. You can mitigate a lot of the annoyance; like exceptions
> that cause premature exits - but you are never really rid of it.

"it" != "C++"; "it" == "GTK".
The assertion is that GTK avoids using C++ by forcing the programmer to
essentially do what they would do in C++ *and* what C++ would do for them.

Hope this makes it a little clearer,
Isaac