Posted by
michael
on from the now-better-splash-screens dept.
d3vi1 writes "Pango, Glib & GTK 2.4.0 have been released to the public. See gtk.org in general, or specifically: the announcements for pango, glib and gtk."
This release should clear the most litigious point against GTK+ : the file dialog.
Recent screenshots on gnomedesktop.org seem to prove they did the job right.
However, anyone knows if the WIN32 is far behind or up to date with this release ?
-- Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Re:It's the little things....
by
sydb
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
All hail Lord Stallman; praise to St Ignucius.
Those "linux libraries" are not "linux" libraries, they are GNU libraries.
That's why they run on things that aren't linux.
-- Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Re:Separate windows are fine
by
Abcd1234
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Okay, you don't get it. That's okay, why would you? After all, you clearly don't understand how X works...
Implementing MDI is highly *non-trivial*. It requires Gtk to implement a full windowing toolkit, along with everything that entails. So, what you're saying is that you want the developers to waste thousands of man-hours implementing something that is, in the end, broken by design? Yeah, brilliant idea.
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't *you* go and implement MDI in Gtk. Then, when you're done, fix up The GIMP to use it, and voila! You'll be the hero of those "thousands of users"! Have fun!
I don't see that a good thing necessarily. I've gone through the pain of compiling programs that had dozens of libraries needed because the author was too lazy to write a single function. Having all these libraries an arm reach away has made modern programmers lazy and less knowledgeable.
This is a tragic mis-statement. What it has done is extended the power of complex, standard behaviors and routines to other programmers, allowed for centralised bug fixing as well as system wide improvments and feature enhancements. Code reuse has allowed us to build complex software in short time periods to meet ever diminishing deadlines.
Even if the use of standard libraries made programmers 'lazy' and 'less knowledgeable' ( I can't believe I'm writing this ), how does this in any way negatively impact their output provided they have access to these amazing laze inducing libraries?
It almost makes me sad to read this post. My computing forebears slaved and suffered in a living hell of replicated work and wasted maintainance time - we have these tremendous advantages at our disposal, and they are characterised as some kind of enemy of programming moral fiber.
-- One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
Re:C++ Interface?
by
Erwos
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yes, you still do.
However, I really wouldn't raise my nose at GTKmm - it's actually VERY nicely done, and for someone who was raised on C++ and the STL (ie, most coders coming out of college now), it's much more intuitive than some other toolkits.
Trust me - GTKmm is no sacrifice at all.
-Erwos
-- Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Slashdot Mirror
This release should clear the most litigious point against GTK+ : the file dialog.
Recent screenshots on gnomedesktop.org seem to prove they did the job right.
However, anyone knows if the WIN32 is far behind or up to date with this release ?
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
All hail Lord Stallman; praise to St Ignucius.
Those "linux libraries" are not "linux" libraries, they are GNU libraries.
That's why they run on things that aren't linux.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Okay, you don't get it. That's okay, why would you? After all, you clearly don't understand how X works...
Implementing MDI is highly *non-trivial*. It requires Gtk to implement a full windowing toolkit, along with everything that entails. So, what you're saying is that you want the developers to waste thousands of man-hours implementing something that is, in the end, broken by design? Yeah, brilliant idea.
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't *you* go and implement MDI in Gtk. Then, when you're done, fix up The GIMP to use it, and voila! You'll be the hero of those "thousands of users"! Have fun!
This is a tragic mis-statement. What it has done is extended the power of complex, standard behaviors and routines to other programmers, allowed for centralised bug fixing as well as system wide improvments and feature enhancements. Code reuse has allowed us to build complex software in short time periods to meet ever diminishing deadlines.
Even if the use of standard libraries made programmers 'lazy' and 'less knowledgeable' ( I can't believe I'm writing this ), how does this in any way negatively impact their output provided they have access to these amazing laze inducing libraries?
It almost makes me sad to read this post. My computing forebears slaved and suffered in a living hell of replicated work and wasted maintainance time - we have these tremendous advantages at our disposal, and they are characterised as some kind of enemy of programming moral fiber.
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
Yes, you still do.
However, I really wouldn't raise my nose at GTKmm - it's actually VERY nicely done, and for someone who was raised on C++ and the STL (ie, most coders coming out of college now), it's much more intuitive than some other toolkits.
Trust me - GTKmm is no sacrifice at all.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.