Re: Making guile-gtk-1.2 stable?

[Marius Vollmer]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Kevin Ryde wrote:
>
>> I've been using the guile-gtk-1.2 branch because it worked and because
>> I was playing with the gdk level stuff.  I don't actually mind whether
>> it's this stuff or the -gobject stuff which is the basis for going
>> forward, though it seems slightly silly to keep both.
>
> Agreed that it's silly to keep both,

Hmm, I'd say as long as people want to work on both, we should keep
them both around.  I wouldn't recommend guile-gtk-1.2 for new
projects, but I use it for mine, since I know it quite well and it is
entirely sufficient.

But, I don't see guile-gtk-1.2 growing to cover the whole Gnome
Desktop API, for example.  That's what the more modern guile-gobject
is for.  (I just wouldn't want to be _forced_ into using guile-gobject
instead of guile-gtk-1.2...)

In the long run, it is silly to keep both, but right now, it's OK, IMO.

>> The only thing I'm not especially keen on is the goops in -gobject.
>> Maybe I only need to shown the light, but I'd probably prefer to use
>> it with just the plain functions (which is already possible I guess,
>> but I mean without loading up all the goops bits).
>
> If what you want are just the plain functions, just load up (gnome gtk
> gw-gtk). That's just the functions, although I don't know what's changed
> from when Andreas started working on decreasing load times.

Using GOOPS with guile-gobject is totally the right thing, in my view.
It is courageous, since GOOPS might not be up to the task, but it
clearly should, ideally.  So guile-gobject is a good opportunity to
improve GOOPS.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405