Enlightenment's EFL Continues Dominating In The Embedded Space

[raster]

The central data type was previously void* in the Tizen 2.2 version of EFL. They changed it to a single struct and claimed that that would make it type safe now that it has a single static type instead.

I debunked that completely - read the thread in far more detail. At least upstream EFL didn't have void *. not any time like in the last decade or so. I couldn't find any tizen repo with void * typedefs either, so if tizen changed it, i couldn't see it in a repo anywhere. we didn't not use a single type for all objects. timers and jobs, animators had their own types. canvases are a type as is the canvas glue its own type. canvas objects were the same type because they inherited from the base object and if we literally had a separate type you'd be forced to cast every time you used a basic function (or something equivalent to casting) like in gtk and this doesn't help much.

Unfortunately not using void* does not make it type safe.

debunked. never proven to be true. even if it was changed in tizen headers, the upstream project never shipped any release like this.

Please educate yourself with algebraic data types and the expression problem. It's a bit hard to understand the value of the criticism if you're not that versed with programming languages and stuff. There's also a link later in the comments that shows some heavy NIH C++ data type serialization emulation which is totally silly as they could have just used C++ instead.

well i guess gtk/gobject then is also nih c++, oh so is the linux kernel - oo is done with structs and function pointers. yes - i chose c a long time ago when it would have been a pretty bad choice, and changing language along the way would have meant making other really bad compromises (like not having a c api for c apps unless manually created and maintained alongside c++).

[caligula]

Why ? All they have done is _offer_ their sources. Don like their stuff ? Fork your own version. And if you think it's appropriate, you could feel gratefull for open sauce that gave you starting point for doing so, a few "bitches" more or less.

With all the toolkits out there, why would one want to pick EFL as a starting point?

[Ardje]

With all the toolkits out there, why would one want to pick EFL as a starting point?

Of all the toolkits out there (EFL and QT, what else is there?), EFL can meet your target, whatever your target is. Low on memory? Or just low on power? Which also is the biggest downside of EFL, you have to compile for your target and make decisions, since there are no distributions which have a good selection of options.
Next to that, the developers are extremely helpful, not just about EFL, but just design issues and problems in general.
What would make my life complete is local efl=require"efl", as I have to jump through hoops to get a working multi video player using plain gstreamer. As a programmer I refuse to do C unless I have to create interfaces or hacking kernel.

[doom_Oo7]

well i guess gtk/gobject then is also nih c++

yes

oh so is the linux kernel - oo is done with structs and function pointers.

yes

[kalrish]

If you don't think it's bad to have errors like that, you're an idiot.

You, along with other well-known users, treat many like crap. Didn't your parents teach you manners? If they did, you should be ashamed of being such a failure; and, if they didn't, they were crap themselves. Choose and take a dose of your own medicine.

[starshipeleven]

You, along with other well-known users, treat many like crap. Didn't your parents teach you manners? If they did, you should be ashamed of being such a failure; and, if they didn't, they were crap themselves. Choose and take a dose of your own medicine.

Go away silly sophist, your trickery is ineffective on me.

[mcirsta]

With all the toolkits out there, why would one want to pick EFL as a starting point?

Because Samsung couldn't take Qt for cheap so they just got EFL. It's like asking why Ubuntu went with their own MIR, because Wayland wasn't theirs and they wanted their own thingy.
Other then Tizen EFL and Enlightenment really have a low market share so Samsung is the only one pushing it.
Qt on the other hand has a much broader support and say what you want about KDE but it's got market share for sure. I haven't used EFL but I have tried GTK ( hated it ) and Qt5 ( liked it but had mixed feeling about QML ).
If I had to choose I'd just go with Qt5 because I know it and it trust it.

[ozric]

Obligatory : https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/15001/enlightened

Besides, I think that Qt pretty much is king in terms of market share for embedded UI toolkits.

I've been programming since the late 70s, lots of paradigm shifts and languages over that time, usually requiring a lot of learning to grasp new ideas. Someone like this would never be considered for a position anywhere I was hiring. He screams out for anyone to hear, "I am an idiot who can't read documentation!" Just about every gripe he had was a complete inability to follow documentation, let alone even google for it.

After reading that I experimented with EFL, it was not difficult to pick up at all. It would seem that schools spit out lots of 'programmers' who know a certain IDE or language, but are never taught how to actually write code. Oh, they can follow an example or two, copy and paste bits together here and there, but actually learn a new language or concept? Not so much.

Basically all I got out of that article was that this guy can't easily learn a new API, gets frustrated and starts bitching about things that aren't even correct.

[c117152]

I haven't used EFL but I have tried GTK ( hated it ) and Qt5 ( liked it but had mixed feeling about QML ).
If I had to choose I'd just go with Qt5 because I know it and it trust it.

Qt has better tools and docs. But it really sucks when you actually need to debug something since the stacks are practically untraceable and got help you if you're allocating to the heap. GTK is a little better in those regards, but it's a very rigid toolbox. The moment you go customizing you're dead.

EFL has everything and anything in-between with a stack you can follow. Unfortunately, a quick glance over the key-binding functions of stuff like Terminology shows just how much all those atomics cost in LoC. You essentially end up needing to know the library top-to-bottom to be able to read other people's code... Which defeats the purpose of picking a C library over a C++ one as far as most people are concerned.

Overall, They all suck. The fact that web programming with EcmaScript horrors keeps taking the lead over GUI design really goes to show you just how horrible they really are.

[Hi-Angel]

oh so is the linux kernel - oo is done with structs and function pointers.

yes

To me it sounds more like a functional than OO. It's a shame though that C still didn't have ADTs.

P.S. hmm, sorry if something go wrong, that post have actually embedded quotes, but for some reason I didn't see them in the preview