Gconf or GSettings? - leading to a wider question
amit.k.chaudhuri at gmail.com
Sun Jan 20 10:38:46 PST 2013
..thanks all or the orientation on Gtk3...
I quite enjoy coding with Qt, so the idea of using it to target multiple
platforms has a real appeal for me compared to learning Gtk2+, particularly
if that is heading for deprecation and it's successorhas material
weaknesses in that area.
Things like saving persistent settings across sessions certainly look
easier in Qt; I can easily imagine code coming out of <platform.c>s in that
>From my own point of view, the widget which looks hardest to code in Qt is
the plot of the dive. The rest is pretty routine.
If one were to look at moving to a new GUI toolkit, how would the
transition look? I imagine there's a run up to be planned in and I can't
see mixing toolkits as an option. But if we have more Qt programmers than
Gtk talent around.........maybe it's worth serious consideration
I might have a look at the dive plot code to see if I can get somewhere
similar in Qt...
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Linus Torvalds <
torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dirk Hohndel <dirk at hohndel.org> wrote:
> > But then again, it brings us C++…
> You can largely write C++ as C most of the time, so it's not
> necessarily a huge problem.
> C++ is problematic if you use the crazy streams crap, and/or STL and
> boost. And the idiotic pass-by-reference, which means that now you
> can't see in the caller whether the call changes the argument you pass
> in or not.
> And of course, all C++ people do that, because they've been taught
> from early on that it's a good idea.
> And that's often the real problem with C++. You *can* use it sanely,
> but the C++ *people* are insane. The horrible template syntax, the
> "stronger" type system that just makes people have to then add casts
> to make it actually weaker than K&R C, the idiotic belief that streams
> are a good idea.. And then they've been taught that "Object Oriented
> Programming" solves all your problems, which is crazy (and causes
> people to do all kinds of insane things to hide the details inside the
> objects, and then invent absolutely idiotic models to transfer
> information from one class to another).
> But using a C++ compiler to just compile "extended C" is not
> necessarily a bad thing. The problem really is that it's easy for the
> crazies to then "fix" the clean code, and they'll talk your ear off
> about how boost/STL/OOP/pass-by-reference makes all your problems go
> away (except for all the millions of problems it causes).
> So I think C++ is a horrible language, and has taught a lot of people
> really really bad things. But it *can* be used well, if you are
> I suspect the biggest problem with Qt is not the C++ part, it's just
> the huge amount of work to rewrite all the gtk crap we've already
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the subsurface