On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 02:25:21AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Matthias Andree wrote: > > Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET > Framework than direct Windows API?
Because they like buggy code? (Not that the basic API is much better) > Why is gtkmm created for GTK+? Because they enjoy extremely long compile times? And they like wrappers around wrappers around wrappers? > Would you write a X11 application with original X11 API, without QT or > other X11 toolkits? Comparing KDE/Qt to GNOME/GTK+ is comparing C++ to C. I personally prefer the GTK API (GDK is quite similar to the X11 API) over Qt. My preference is mostly due to the overhead and complexity of C++. C++ and Java are great for Applications, not as much so for kernels. I don't mean to drag this into a KDE vs. GNOME flame war. Also this is not a fair comparison because these toolkits augment what X11 provides, much like how userland augments a kernel. Write the front-end in whatever language/toolkit you prefer; you're still calling Xlib to pass packets to/from the X server. > Good packages for various APIs are much easier to learn/debug than those > original APIs. What makes you say that C++ would provide a good API? I think perhaps the problem may be that the current kernel APIs in C are insufficient... but introducing the complexity of C++ both from a language perspective and from a standard library perspective seems silly to me. When on the device driver level, I would rather know precisely when my code is being called and manage my own memory, etc. and other nitty-gritty details. I agree that a good API is crucial! But I also believe that C provides this better than others. You can always write code in C++ which calls C functions, but the converse is quite tricky. -- Rick C. Petty _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
