GTK Ticked-Off

[Kurt Wall]

Quoth James McDonald:
> 
> I noticed that in some of the backwardly compatible API's developers are
> saddled with the good and the bad from a previous implementation and the
> extra effort to maintain compatibility.

Well, all I can say is that maintaining backward compatibility is
part of the contract developers make with users when they create
an API. Of course software evolves, but that doesn't mean that
gratuitous API breakage is acceptable.

> Doesn't the re-implementation of certain API's help to create what could
> be a great leap forward when the newer version comes out

Existing APIs should be extended, not broken. There's nothing wrong
with reimplementing existing APIs - the complaint here is that in the
process of "reimplementing" them the old published interfaces were
changed or discarded completely. Interface != implementation.

> I'm not a developer but isn't gtk2 far superior to gtk1.x?

*I* certainly don't think so. GTK+ 1.x worked well. It isn't as 
feature-rich as its newer version, but it isn't as bloated, either.
> 
> -- 
> James McDonald
> Systems Engineer
> 
> Singleton NSW Australia
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-users mailing list
> Linux-users at linux-sxs.org
> Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users

-- 
The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go
to erase it.
		-- Glaser and Way