Re: Alternative to glade?
- From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:43:32 +0100
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Joris Dolderer <stdio@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:11:53 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
You've got a bit of an unusual set of requirements: GTK, UI-builder,My program would have one extra dependency (libglade), less performance
generating C code. Note that the reason glade-2 is unsupported is that
they have moved on to an xml description-based approach with glade-3; so
why are you set on having the gui-builder write the code?
(don't know how much but might be a bit), more executed code -> A bigger
chance a bug is in it and an increased size if you include the libglade
dependency. And I don't know why I should use such a system if I could
use simple C code.
Larger, true, but it's arguable that since more people are using
libglade your probability of a bug is actually lower (compared to
rolling your own).
At best, such a statement could be made about the past, insofar
statistic data backing it would be available. A structurally similar
claim would be that 'because more people develop for Windows than
develop for Linux, the probability of Windows-libraries having bugs is
lower than the probability of 'Linux-libraries' having bugs'. Without
some additional premises, this is just a non-sequitur.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Alternative to glade?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Re: Alternative to glade?
- References:
- Alternative to glade?
- From: Joris Dolderer
- Re: Alternative to glade?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Re: Alternative to glade?
- From: Joris Dolderer
- Re: Alternative to glade?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Alternative to glade?
- Prev by Date: Re: g++ -D compiler options
- Next by Date: Trouble with getbyhostname()
- Previous by thread: Re: Alternative to glade?
- Next by thread: Re: Alternative to glade?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|