GLib/GObject+C as the lingua franca? (was: kwallet and QCA)

koos vriezen koos.vriezen at
Fri Jul 25 21:12:13 BST 2008

2008/7/25 koos vriezen <koos.vriezen at>:
> 2008/7/25 Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman at>:
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Aaron J. Seigo <aseigo at> wrote:
>>> the same can be done with other frameworks. glib isn't magical in this regard.
>> GLib-2 and Gtk+-2 already have C++ wrappers (and so do pango, atk and cairo).
>> My question is: instead of to writing OO in C (which has been fondly
>> described by some as "putting makeup on a pig: the pig doesn't enjoy
>> it, and the end result is frightening" :-), wouldn't it be more
>> efficient to use the already existing C++ wrappers ?
> No, because when we need something that uses another toolkit to play
> nicely in KDE, the dependencies should be as small as possible. Just a
> quick example:
> $ nm -D /usr/lib/ |grep ' T ' |wc -l
> 8932
> $ nm -D /usr/lib/ |grep ' T ' |wc -l
> 3535
> so almost a triple extra symbols to resolve at load time.
> Maybe some 'use Qt for every job' may dislike gtk or plain C in
> general, but a. they either have no clue what happening beneath it
> and/or b. are too stubborn to look over their horizon anyhow. Others
> will pick up the job.

Oops, this sounds a bit to harsh I guess. With 'no clue' I meant 'no
clue or interests'. We all have our thing, whether it's GUI, databases
or system programming.
The point I wanted to make is that putting synthetic sugar over lower
level API's makes only things slower, while a pure GUI developer
doesn't maintain this code anyhow. For the one who does, wrappers
probably more confuse than help.


> Btw. Vala is a nice alternative to get a nice OO language w/o extra
> dependencies (for as long as it takes of course)
> Koos
>> Just my  0.02 question.
>> --Stefan
>> --
>> Stefan Teleman
>> KDE e.V.
>> stefan.teleman at

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list