glib dependancy in KDE3.x
glaurent at telegraph-road.org
Fri Mar 7 17:46:22 GMT 2003
On Friday 07 March 2003 18:25, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > You can't be serious here. "irrational policy of using only C++" ??
> Hey, he said "irrational policy of using only C++ applications". There's a
> big difference here.
I meant my quote as a sum up of "using only C++ code" actually.
> Because that is irrational... (well at least IMHO)
No, it's not. If KDE is so much ahead in terms of integration, it's because
it's C++ all throughout. That is not a necessary condition, but it helps
> The question was if it's ok to depend on glib instead of copying glib into
> arts sources.
> And so far I have not seen a single good argument for keeping the situation
> like it is now - except for those who think that this dependency will mean
> more work for them (I don't really count that as a "good" argument though
I don't really care. Ressources-wise, glib is a rounding error on most current
machines. Avoiding to duplicate it is certainly a good thing. However, using
it because "some things must be implemented in C", is not a good reason.
I've been told that arts is in C so that Gnome can use it. It then makes sense
to use glib. If it's in C for any other reason, then it should be moved to
More information about the kde-core-devel