On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 06:58:04PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:
>
> Yes, I figured it was something along those lines. As I mentioned
> in a previous email, my experience with GTK has been mercifully
> small. I can certainly understand why you would get annoyed. I'm
> something of a C aficionado so using pointers to do this does not
> bother me, but that said, it is very to make a mistake.
>
> >This is work which the C++ compiler would have done for me, with
> >no added complexity, and no chance for me to introduce bugs into
> >the overly complex mess. On top of that, the C++ class would be
> >completely type-safe in all respects where the GType system
> >requires allmost all type safety to be discarded to implement
> >polymorphism.
> >
> I apologize for the confusion on my part. I see what you meant.
> When people say the phrase "type-safe" in relation to C/C++ I'm left
> to wonder.

Suggesting that GTK would be easy to handle via a binding to a truly
strongly-typed language, where the binding provides the static typing
and careful memory management that's hard to see in the C version of
GTK.

-- hendrik