Red Hat Makes Progress On Firefox Native For Wayland

[justmy2cents]

A proper GUI library should be written in a proper object oriented language.

C++11 is a decent language, much better than C + GObject

because that would make reusing it in non object oriented languages so much better... NOT!

if you think that using object oriented language is any better/faster/whatever than not, then you're completely deluded. and before you start assuming,... yes, most of my work is done in OO languages, some in C. while C++11 being decent, it is a matter of perspective. i find whole C++ as one of the worst languages ever

you can make objects from C really easy and you support both worlds from grounds up

[torsionbar28]

I wish that there would be 1 main framework for GUIs: Qt.

But that would mean we're stuck using KDE. No thanks.

[andre30correia]

because that would make reusing it in non object oriented languages so much better... NOT!

if you think that using object oriented language is any better/faster/whatever than not, then you're completely deluded. and before you start assuming,... yes, most of my work is done in OO languages, some in C. while C++11 being decent, it is a matter of perspective. i find whole C++ as one of the worst languages ever

you can make objects from C really easy and you support both worlds from grounds up

your opinion nothing more than that

[dragorth]

That's not true at all. There are dozens of other companies like put a lot of time, effort, and money into the development of linux. For non-hardware purposes, IBM, Oracle, Novell, Google, and maybe even Facebook seem to pitch in more than Intel.

Notice he said companies "like" Intel and Redhat?

[Azrael5]

It will be available also on KDE Kubuntu!? What kind of graphical server browsers use on linux currently!? I assume it is xorg...

[justmy2cents]

your opinion nothing more than that

everything but my opinion on C++ is simple truth.
- OO won't guarantee higher level of code. only in case where coder simply can't hack it. for n00b... OO is easier
- OO won't guarantee faster execution. it is again dependent on coder
- OO is just easier to code, not better, not worse
- it is much harder to create bindings for other languages from C++ than C and if you're commenting on universal GUI lib, that is probably most important factor

and the one part that is personal was specifying "while C++11 being decent, it is a matter of perspective. i find..."

now, i'm not native english speaker, how would your comment and me saying it is a matter of perspective be any different? i actually stated that my self and translation would be "opinions differ, not everyone likes C++, not everyone hates it either"

[boxie]

Ahh - the great debate between C and C++ - where both might be wrong and neither are right!

At the end of the day they are just 2 languages, the only "wrong" or "right" is whether they are the right tool for the job. The same thing goes for the gui libs of any language

[doom_Oo7]

- OO is just easier to code, not better, not worse

When writing software, the only "better" / "worse" measurement is the ease of use of the programming language.

Also, https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt

And people seem to have no problem making bindings / adaptations from Qt to Java, C#, Haskell, Python....

[justmy2cents]

When writing software, the only "better" / "worse" measurement is the ease of use of the programming language.

Also, https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt

And people seem to have no problem making bindings / adaptations from Qt to Java, C#, Haskell, Python....

and the ease of use for some language is defined by the problem you are solving, not the language. some problems are just more suited for OO, some not. that just says you're not at stage where you'd figure that out.

going further with your claim C# is far better than C++. it is easier, it is far more flexible and presents you with less problems for your code to work

i actually use both and both, so i don't know why you beat this horse. Qt and Gtk (prefer Gtk due to much cleaner API) and OO and non OO (prefer OO if possible, but some problems just aren't suited for it)

as far as bindings go. i don't know for the rest, but i wouldn't mention C# in your claim. i really wanted to do some C# project in Qt because it would be more suitable to the software i was writing. but, C# and Qt is a disaster that never even started successfully. you had Qt sharp, which was never even remotely finished and was replaced/obsoleted by Kyoto, which again had more problems than actual working code and was replaced (with completely different, go figure) Qt-sharp where developers haven't even solved the website debacle to show the right project, way of providing something working.

[Maxjen]

And people seem to have no problem making bindings / adaptations from Qt to Java, C#, Haskell, Python....

According to this article it seems to be quite hard to write Rust bindings for Qt. But that was about a year ago. Maybe the situation has improved since then.