glib dependancy in KDE3.x

Guillaume Laurent glaurent at
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 mailing list