Re: Alternative to glade?
- From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:36:44 +0100
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
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.
Well, sure, but the additional premise is just that the libglade
developers are acting on user bug reports.
There are more, at least that
- past libglade users used it in sufficiently similar ways
to the OP to have found all the bugs that could affect the
OP
- all those bugs have been reported correctly
- libglade developers have already (and correctly) fixed all
of those bugs in the release the OP would be using
- the OP is a 'bad enough' programmer with enough 'bad luck'
to write more bugs into a simple piece of code than the
libglader programmers wrote into a complicated piece of code
Another relevant aspect would be 'assuming the OP does encounter a
libglade bug, how much effort is need upon his part to understand the
more-general-than-needed code sufficiently well to fix the bug on his
own[*], vs how much effort would have to be spent fixing 'other bugs'
in code being both simpler and more familiar to him [because he wrote
it].
[*] Reporting bugs to 'OSS projects' will typically result in
being ignored or being flamed by someone presently feeling
bored or upset that 'someone else' dared to claim there would
be a bug. Therefore, using 'OSS code' necessitates to be
prepared to fix any potential issue as needed. Especially,
taking into account that being ignored or flamed is the usual
reaction to bug reports including patches, too.
Unless the 'OSS project' provides something which is
technically complicated enough that reimplementing the
actually needed parts of it would take 'a long time' (eg the
Linux-kernel or Samba), the IMO best course of action is to
not use the 'OSS project' unless one is specifically getting
paid to waste time quarrelling with non-desirables on public
mailing lists.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Alternative to glade?
- From: Joris Dolderer
- 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
- Re: Alternative to glade?
- From: Rainer Weikusat
- Re: Alternative to glade?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Alternative to glade?
- Prev by Date: Re: Alternative to glade?
- Next by Date: Re: Trouble with getbyhostname()
- Previous by thread: Re: Alternative to glade?
- Next by thread: Re: Alternative to glade?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|