glib in kdesupport: yes or no?

[George Staikos]

On Sunday 09 March 2003 12:48, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> On Sunday 09 March 2003 16:08, Neil Stevens wrote:
> > KDE has used almost exclusively the C++ language since its inception.  I
> > don't think it's appropriate to try to undermine that choice in this
> > manner.
>
> KDE uses C++ because in most cases that is clearly the superior solution.
> However, in cases where the advantages of using C outweigh the advantages
> of C++, the decision has been made to use C. For very much the same reasons
> it can make sense to use glib instead of C++/Qt/kdelibs. Having such an
> additional option at ones disposal allows developers to better choose the
> appropriate technology for the problems that they try to solve. Being able
> to share code with other development efforts can be an important factor in
> such decision. See for example the work on wv2.

  You seem to be missing one point though.  wv2 is optional, arts is not.  If 
we have to depend on more libraries for arts, I think arts should be made 
optional too.  I think it's rediculous to have 3 sets of container libraries.

-- 

George Staikos