Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GTK 4.0 Toolkit Officially Released

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post
    There is an interesting post about Gnome (not only Gtk): https://hpjansson.org/blag/2020/12/1...ying-of-gnome/
    When I saw "Graying of GNOME" in the URL I thought it was just going to be complaining about the purge of any shred of color or contrast in the UI... :P

    Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post
    I'm guessing having* to use C is the main factor of "Although recruitment is stable, newcomers don’t seem to be hitting their stride in terms of commits."
    I'm guessing it has nothing at all to do with that, and everything to do with what happens to NIH PRs.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by AnAccount View Post
      I don't think C++ is solving much of the issues with C.
      thinking is not your strongest skill
      Originally posted by AnAccount View Post
      It provides object orientation and some other goodies, but you still keep all the bad things about C like memory management, dangling pointers, null pointers (well, null in general), race conditions and deadlocks
      that's what uneducated masses brainwashed by rust propaganda think. c++ provides ability to build lightweight abstractions and all those problems can be solved with them.
      Originally posted by AnAccount View Post
      By using Rust you get a programing language
      prototype
      Originally posted by AnAccount View Post
      with the same performance
      lie
      Originally posted by AnAccount View Post
      , but with a lot more safety (memory, races, deadlocks, pointers and so on, are much safer)
      there's c++ prototype with "a lot more safety". btw, no language will help you with "races, deadlocks", those are algorithmic errors. rust programmers apparently are unable to distinguish between "race condition" and "data race".
      Originally posted by AnAccount View Post
      plus you get a lot more modern paradigms in the language
      another lie. you don't get even modern paradigms already present in c++, like variadic templates
      Originally posted by AnAccount View Post
      my recommendation to use Rust over C/C++ in general
      my recommendation is to learn subject matter before issuing recommendations. there's no "c/c++" language, it's two different languages. some people are too stupid to learn c++, those are rust's target audience. every rust success story starts with "skipped c++ classes, suffered from c, cried for help, switched to rust"
      pal666
      Senior Member
      Last edited by pal666; 18 December 2020, 05:40 AM.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by oleid View Post
        Keep in mind that sending values around in C++ is not necessarily thread-safe, IF they contain pointers to other data.
        yes, you have to design your program properly. c++ have tools to help you with that. shared data shouldn't be accessible to arbitrary code. you make it private and ensure it's accessed only using proper protocol.
        Originally posted by oleid View Post
        Also, std::shared_pointer can easily be mutated from different threads.
        it's unclear what you are trying to say, anything can be mutated from different threads as long as they have non-const reference to it
        Originally posted by oleid View Post
        Anyway, what libraries can you recommend?
        i'm sure there's no shortage of higher-level threading libraries for c++, but i usually use manual implementations of active object and synchronized template on top of standard library
        Originally posted by oleid View Post
        I agree, gtkmm is cleaner. But it is hardy used. Even on Linux, most GTK apps are not using gtkmm.
        that's one of reasons for rust hype(see last sentence in my previous comment)
        pal666
        Senior Member
        Last edited by pal666; 18 December 2020, 06:21 AM.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by calc View Post

          That's exactly what it looks like, without Red Hat and Canonical it would likely die.

          The long decline after 2010 until the uptick in 2018 also marks when Ubuntu had stopped using Gnome and switched to Unity with 11.04 until they switched to Gnome 3 with 17.10.
          I beg to differ.

          I don't think it would. On the contrary. Without the boundaries, the limited design frame and the tight control imposed by Red Hat, there would have been a much more diverse interest and the contributions would have flown. Maybe in too many directions though, which could lead to an opposite effect.

          You mention a clear example of this. Red Hat rejected Canonical's ideas entirely in 2010-11 and Gnome really struggled (with UI, extensions, performance, etc...). Letting back in that big player in 2017 made a noticeable difference. Although they still have a huge issue with their limited design by not accepting externally submitted ideas. As long as they will keep a tight control of Gnome's evolution, it will remain problematic.

          It's like a good sports team with a very individualist world class player which is never winning anything. Suddenly, that player is no longer in the equation (retired, sold, etc...) and somehow it liberates the others on an individual and on a collective scale while making place for new talents. Eventually, they start winning prizes because the team is no longer swallowed up by one player.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by pal666 View Post
            yes, you have to design your program properly. c++ have tools to help you with that. shared data shouldn't be accessible to arbitrary code. you make it private and ensure it's accessed only using proper protocol.
            Initial design usually isn't the problem, when done right. Refactoring usually is. Especially when being done by people who inherited the code.

            Comment

            Working...
            X