Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-27 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Ilya Khayutin wrote: > Other advantages on C??? Do you know about any future > in C++ that can't be implemented in C For one, inline functions. Don't even get me started on macros. > except > inheritence and the ability to "protect" variables > (which is NOT so easily imple

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-27 Thread Ilya Khayutin
> You are an idiot. > Seems that you do not know neither C, nor C++. > privilege control can be implemented in C without > any trouble. > C++ has _other_ advantages on C. Other advantages on C??? Do you know about any future in C++ that can't be implemented in C except inheritence and the abilit

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-24 Thread Vadim Vygonets
Quoth Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo on Mon, Jul 24, 2000: [standard] > VV>> Something that is widely implemented and followed, perhaps? > > You must mean Microsoft Office *ducks* *runs* *hides* Now, Frodo, this is MEAN. Vadik. -- Spelling is a lossed art. ===

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-24 Thread Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo
IA>> > Given enough time and resource - definitely. Having made entire DB IA>> > solution in pure Javascript (no, it wasn't fun), I'm firm in this. IA>> IA>> now THAT sounds impressive. does it parse XML too? do publish it in IA>> OpenSource :-) No, it didn't (though I guess I might do that too,

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-24 Thread Ira Abramov
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: > VV>> Something that is widely implemented and followed, perhaps? > > You must mean Microsoft Office *ducks* *runs* *hides* for that matter, YES. M$office is a DE FACTO standard. question is are we discussing de-facto or de-jure st

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-24 Thread Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo
VV>> Something that is widely implemented and followed, perhaps? You must mean Microsoft Office *ducks* *runs* *hides* VV>> No, sadly. You? ITYM "no, luckily". It isn't real flamewar unless it is over One True Standard. VV>> For some reason, I haven't saved the addresses of FUCKING VV>> "

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-24 Thread Vadim Vygonets
Quoth Ury Segal on Sun, Jul 23, 2000: > Yes. Do you know what is a standard ? Something that is widely implemented and followed, perhaps? > Have you EVER been > involved in standatrizing effort ? No, sadly. You? > Did you ever READ a standard? Do RFCs or ISO standards qualify? In this case,

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-24 Thread Vadim Vygonets
Quoth Adam Morrison on Sun, Jul 23, 2000: > > I haven't sene many programmers who go and fiddle with struct > > __jmp_buf instead of using setjmp/longjmp. > > You don't have to look very far, actually. > > http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/course/os/Ex3/demo.c I know. I did this exercise too. But my p

FW: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-24 Thread Felix Shvaiger
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vadim Vygonets Subject: Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1") > Quoth Ilya Khayutin on Fri, Jul 21, 2000: > > >From this thread I got the impression that most people > > here think that C++ is still that language which has > > no standart, used by

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-23 Thread Ury Segal
> Quoth Ilya Khayutin on Fri, Jul 21, 2000: > > >From this thread I got the impression that most people > > here think that C++ is still that language which has > > no standart, used by small groups of people and is > > realy useless. Well guys... IT IS NOT THE 80s > > ANYMORE!!! > > Pity. > >

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-23 Thread Adam Morrison
> > If you > > simply write in the documentation "don't use that member", intellegient > > programmers won't use it. And unintellegient programmers will make stupid > > mistakes no matter how you try to protect them. > > For example, one of the OSes I use defines jmp_buf as: > > struct __jmp_bu

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-22 Thread Vadim Vygonets
Quoth Moshe Zadka on Sat, Jul 22, 2000: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Vadim Vygonets wrote: > > Private class members have nothing to do with API _or_ > > documentation. It just hides the internal structure. > > What do you mean "hides"? The private class members are right there in > your face in the h

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-21 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Vadim Vygonets wrote: > > Only if you're writing in the wild west. In most other places, people try > > not to shoot themselves in the foot by using undocumented APIs. > > Hello? > > Private class members have nothing to do with API _or_ > documentation. It just hides the

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-21 Thread Vadim Vygonets
Quoth Ilya Khayutin on Fri, Jul 21, 2000: > >From this thread I got the impression that most people > here think that C++ is still that language which has > no standart, used by small groups of people and is > realy useless. Well guys... IT IS NOT THE 80s > ANYMORE!!! Pity. > It is year 2000 and

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-21 Thread Vadim Vygonets
Quoth Moshe Zadka on Fri, Jul 21, 2000: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Ilya Khayutin wrote: > > > There is a big diffrence between a C++ > > class and a C struct: PRIVELEGE CONTROL!! In C > > everyone can directly intefere with any variable in > > the program, same with gtk+ which written in C. In C++ >

Re: C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-21 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Ilya Khayutin wrote: > There is a big diffrence between a C++ > class and a C struct: PRIVELEGE CONTROL!! In C > everyone can directly intefere with any variable in > the program, same with gtk+ which written in C. In C++ > I can make some variable in a class private or > pro

C++ today (was "Re: GTK 1.3.1")

2000-07-21 Thread Ilya Khayutin
Hi, >From this thread I got the impression that most people here think that C++ is still that language which has no standart, used by small groups of people and is realy useless. Well guys... IT IS NOT THE 80s ANYMORE!!! It is year 2000 and C++ is a standartized language which is used by a VERY l

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-20 Thread Ilya Konstantinov
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 11:10:02PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > What is "xterm with unicode"? Grab xterm. Compile with --enable-wide-chars (or something similar). Run with xterm +u8 (You should have a font with a unicode encoding, iso10646-1. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html for a U

GUI toolkits a-la C++ (was: Re: GTK 1.3.1)

2000-07-20 Thread guy keren
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Moshe Zadka wrote: first gilad wrote: > > Qt indeed uses C++ but AFAIK not very well. No templates, no STL and > > little use of things like multiple inheritance . Now I can hear all you > > hard core C programers saying to yourselves: "why, you sayit like it's > > a bad th

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > Qt indeed uses C++ but AFAIK not very well. No templates, no STL and > little use of things like multiple inheritance . Now I can hear all you > hard core C programers saying to yourselves: "why, you say it like it's > a bad thing?!" but I think that

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread guy keren
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Matti Picus wrote: > But can't LGPL be used to build proprietary applications? Just build the > proprietary stuff as a library, supply only the main.c source along with > the libraries and headers, and you are OK, no? you don't have to expose the source code of an applica

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Tzafrir Cohen
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Ilya Konstantinov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 01:22:08AM +0300, Pavel Bibergal wrote: > > The new development version of GTK 1.3.1 is out :) > > > > http://news.gnome.org/gnome-news/963685850/ > > > > full Pango/Unicode integration.. that mean the hebrew will work right

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Ury Segal
- Original Message - From: Ilya Konstantinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > QT is C++ and OO. For GTK+, they developed their own system > of containers and objects so they won't have to use C++ This sentense said you realy, readly do not understand what C++ is all about. > (and community people

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Gilad Ben-Yossef
Ilya Konstantinov wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 08:21:50AM +0300, Ira Abramov wrote: > > BTW, I'm still in the dark about why not use OO for libraries such as > > this (Graphic toolkits). > > QT is C++ and OO. For GTK+, they developed their own system > of containers and objects so they wo

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Ilya Konstantinov
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 08:21:50AM +0300, Ira Abramov wrote: > nothing is ever perfect from day one, and sometimes to improve a product > you must break backwards compatibility. Bill Gates have yet to > understand it. Of course. For example, the multiline text widget (gtktext) was redone. The pre

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Matti Picus wrote: > But can't LGPL be used to build proprietary applications? Just build the > proprietary stuff as a library, supply only the main.c source along with > the libraries and headers, and you are OK, no? It's not always convinient.

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Matti Picus
But can't LGPL be used to build proprietary applications? Just build the proprietary stuff as a library, supply only the main.c source along with the libraries and headers, and you are OK, no? Matti At 10:58 AM 19/7/00 +0300, Moshe Zadka wrote: >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Chen Shapira wrote: > >It f

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Jonathan Ben-Avraham
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Chen Shapira wrote: > > > Anyone interested in working on such a library? a c++ toolkit > > > from-scratch? there's an Israeli startup taking on > > Gnome/Gtk, Eazel and > > > Helix together with a GPL kit of their own, and they are looking for > > > people. > > I'm in the

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Omer Musaev
Moshe Zadka wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Chen Shapira wrote: > > > > Huh? What good toolkit do you know that is > > > > > > a) public domain (or close enough) > > > b) good > > > c) portable to Win32/MacOS/BeOS/X Windows > > > > Perhaps GTK? > > It fails on licence issues -- it's LGPL > i

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Chen Shapira wrote: > > Huh? What good toolkit do you know that is > > > > a) public domain (or close enough) > > b) good > > c) portable to Win32/MacOS/BeOS/X Windows > > Perhaps GTK? It fails on licence issues -- it's LGPL -- Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There is no

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Ira Abramov
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Moshe Zadka wrote: > Huh? What good toolkit do you know that is > > a) public domain (or close enough) > b) good > c) portable to Win32/MacOS/BeOS/X Windows only Qt and GTk I suppose, unless you count Qt as not PD, and GTk not as "good". but I think they both work also on w

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Ira Abramov
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Chen Shapira wrote: > > > Anyone interested in working on such a library? a c++ toolkit > > > from-scratch? there's an Israeli startup taking on > > Gnome/Gtk, Eazel and > > > Helix together with a GPL kit of their own, and they are looking for > > > people. > > I'm in the

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Chen Shapira
> Huh? What good toolkit do you know that is > > a) public domain (or close enough) > b) good > c) portable to Win32/MacOS/BeOS/X Windows Perhaps GTK? But this is rarly the point. There are enough toolkits to make choices from. And you can improve on existing ones as you wish. if b is the most

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Chen Shapira wrote: > Why write a Graphic Toolkit from scratch? there are many avaliable, in > diffrent licenses, languages, stages of development, etc. Plenty of space to > choose from and then adapt to your own taste. All are pretty decent. Huh? What good toolkit do you kn

RE: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-19 Thread Chen Shapira
> > Anyone interested in working on such a library? a c++ toolkit > > from-scratch? there's an Israeli startup taking on > Gnome/Gtk, Eazel and > > Helix together with a GPL kit of their own, and they are looking for > > people. I'm in the dark here. Why write a Graphic Toolkit from scratch? the

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-18 Thread Omer Musaev
Ira Abramov wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Ilya Konstantinov wrote: > > > Bad thing is - GTK+ 1.3 (which'll be released as GTK+ 2.0 > > when final) won't be back-compatible. Preloading the new > > libraries before old applications does no good, and OWen > > said every application would have to

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-18 Thread Ira Abramov
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Ilya Konstantinov wrote: > Bad thing is - GTK+ 1.3 (which'll be released as GTK+ 2.0 > when final) won't be back-compatible. Preloading the new > libraries before old applications does no good, and OWen > said every application would have to undergo atleast > some minor chang

Re: GTK 1.3.1

2000-07-18 Thread Ilya Konstantinov
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 01:22:08AM +0300, Pavel Bibergal wrote: > The new development version of GTK 1.3.1 is out :) > > http://news.gnome.org/gnome-news/963685850/ > > full Pango/Unicode integration.. that mean the hebrew will work right on > next gtk versions :) I have tested the pango-gtk bu