Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 26th Feb 2010 12:22 UTC, submitted by kragil
Gnome GNOME hacker Seth Nickell has written a lengthy PDF and accompanying blog post with a number of very interesting ideas for GNOME 3.0. I pondered putting this up on the front page, but since that usually only attracts the "It's not what I'm used to so it sucks"-crowd, I decided to put it up here. Be sure to read the blog post, the PDF, and the comments on the blog post to get the entire picture.
Thread beginning with comment 411494
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Qt have as much binding as Gnome, including C#, Php, Perl, Java (dieing, but still working), Python, ruby, JavaScript/HTML, OBJ C (not sure how compatible, I did not tested). It will also work with C and lua-c. You can write in pretty much everything GTK support.

The C++ object system is not very compatible with other languages. That is one of the main reasons that GNOME is a C based project. Sure you can get other languages to work with QT but it is much messier. Some people just prefer GTK+ because it is a much cleaner interface for non C++ code.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Elv13 Member since:

I don't think your point is valid, please give details, because I am an experienced programmer and to me, C++ is as compatible as C. Binding take little work for functional languages, but otherwise, it work quite well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

abraxas Member since:

If you read the developer docs for GNOME the reason they chose C for GNOME and GTK+ is because the C++ object system is not as runtime-centric as the one created for GTK+. GTK+ makes binding to interpreted languages much smoother. For QT you need MOC, which just sucks if you're a C++ programmer that isn't already familiar with QT. You would be better off with GTKmm than QT if you like to program in C++. It may not be an issue for you but a lot of people really hate MOC, mostly because it is a non-C++ way of doing things.

Edited 2010-03-01 14:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2