This version of Glade (Glade-3) is a complete rewrite of the original Glade codebase. One of the main differences from glade-2 is that C code generation has been removed from glade-3; the preferred way to use glade files is with libglade. Another main difference is that glade-3 was designed to make maximal use of GObject introspection, thus easing the integration of external toolkits and handling widgets, signals and properties genericly. It has a few useful new features such as stacked Undo/Redo and Multiple Project support and respects the same XML format as glade-2.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:> The oo-discussion is kinda pointless here anyway,
> since the GObject design that gtk is using is
> object-oriented too.
Correction: it tries to _mimic_ object oriented design. But it's like with any CARGO CULT ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult ) "technology": If you try to mimic higher technology using inferior tools then you might end up with something that _looks_ close to the real deal. Still those solutions fall short to deliver all of the advantages of the real thing.
That's the reason why many of the core gtk people have learned their lesson and put their focus on C++, .NET or Java these days.
Member since:>That's the reason why many of the core gtk people have learned their lesson and put their focus on C++, .NET or Java these days.
Yup, youve got that right. And the reason they still program in C is to be able to use those libs from all those real OO languages and others too.
Member since:2005-10-01
Except that the cargo cult similitude doesn't really hold, does it? The whole point of Feynman's cargo cult idea is that you _can't_ build a working headset by carving half coconuts, no matter how good a craftsman you are. You might be able to carve something resembling it on the surface, but the substance of the thing is totally different.
On the other hand, programming languages are deep-down all equivalent in the Turing sense. If you want to code with the OO paradigm, it will usually be quicker and simpler with languages that are already shaped for the task, but that doesnt really mean that they are a 'superior' technology as opposed to 'inferior' ones. In the end, everything boils down to machine code, and that's the lowest level code there's. Even lower than C. Would you call it an 'inferior' technology, or argue that you can't design OO patterns and end up with machine code? OO is a way to think and design. Languages come up and help you in that, or let you do it all with your own hands, but eventually it's a way of thinking, not something intrinsically embedded in the syntax of the language you chose.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The oo-discussion is kinda pointless here anyway, since the GObject design that gtk is using is object-oriented too. You don't need to have C++ to write object oriented code (it just makes it easier sometimes).