GOB

Re: C vs. GTK object system

>
> It's not too different. That's good.
> But it gives you less code, clearer
> code, and compile-time type-safety.
> That's good too.
>

GOB gives you quite a bit of compile time type

safety as well. Though with a focus that this

will all work from C code (that is not all your

code has to be in GOB, and in fact shouldn't).

Though compile time typesafety is many times

overrated. I'm more of a fan of runtime

typesafety, since it will catch all type errors,

though with the caveat that the code must run for

you to find errors. That said a certain amount of

static typesafety always helps.

>

> I don't think it's an advantage that

> GTK+ in C makes subclassing difficult.

> Gtk-- in no way forces you to subclass,

> or emphasises that technique. That's

> just something that's available to you,

> whereas the difficulty of doing it in C

> means that people don't choose that

> design technique when they should. And

> code becomes less clear.

> I guess GOB is meant to fix this. It's

> just that C++ seems like a nicer way to

> do that.

>

I didn't mean that this is because GTK+ makes it

hard to subclass. Just that the focus is

different. Yes everything that GTK+ object system

does is possible in C++, and the other way around

as well (though if you wish to do some things in C

you get into some deep voodoo land).

I'm still way more profficent in C, and don't

enjoy C++ very much. You can usually stare at a

piece of code in C and figure out what it does

exactly. With C++ there could be many things

going on behind the scenes that you would have to

look up in the class definition. Example, in C no

code is run until you explicitly call a function.

In C++ things like constructors, destructors and

various overloaded functions get run even when the

syntax doesn't say something would run.

And this is where the original C++ (or cfront)

differ substantially from GOB. all GOB does is

write the boilerplate for you. It does not

attempt to parse or change C code. It does not

understand C almost at all (all it can do is count

parenthesis and braces).

I have made an object system that is statically

typesafe and easy to derive purely using the C

preprocessor. However GTK+ doesn't do this. I'm

very pragmatic on this point. I want to use C. I

like GTK+. Thus GOB. GOB doesn't have the things

that I don't like about C++, and it has an easy

syntax for making objects, while allowing me to

still just use C. I'd be happier if GTK+ object

model didn't require so much boilerplate and was

more c preprocessor friendly, but it isn't. GOB

isn't written for the purpose of writing GOB, it

is something to scratch an itch.

Re: C vs. GTK object system

> You can get
> things like
> signals for C++ with addon libraries,
> and you can
> get a type system for C++ with addon
> libraries.
> You can get named arguments as an
> addon too.

Yes, you can get them all from the same 'add-on library'. That's a language binding.

> But
> then it's not much different then
> coding with
> GTK+.

It's not too different. That's good. But it gives you less code, clearer code, and compile-time type-safety. That's good too.

> If a project for example uses
> GOB, it
> only uses GOB for those few classes it
> has. It
> does not emphasize subclassing for
> things it's not
> needed for.

I don't think it's an advantage that GTK+ in C makes subclassing difficult. Gtk-- in no way forces you to subclass, or emphasises that technique. That's just something that's available to you, whereas the difficulty of doing it in C means that people don't choose that design technique when they should. And code becomes less clear.

I guess GOB is meant to fix this. It's just that C++ seems like a nicer way to do that.

Re: C vs. GTK object system

>
> I'd be interested to know how you
> think that the C GTK object system is
> more flexible rather than just more
> long-winded.
>
>

It depends on your priorities for coding. C++ is

quite a different beast. You can get things like

signals for C++ with addon libraries, and you can

get a type system for C++ with addon libraries.

You can get named arguments as an addon too. But

then it's not much different then coding with

GTK+. The GTK+ (and GObject nowdays) comes with

all these and the unerlying language is much

simpler to understand. With GTK+ objects the

emphasis isn't given on subclassing and making

everything as an object. You still do mostly C

coding. If a project for example uses GOB, it

only uses GOB for those few classes it has. It

does not emphasize subclassing for things it's not

needed for. As owen once put it, it is more a

component system then an object system

I wonder why everybody mentions C++ as "the OO

language". If I was to mention a language that

GTK+/GOB would be closer to, it would be java or

Objective C. At some point in the future I plan

to use Java, when that gets more mature. Java is

very nice as a language, but I'm not too crazy

about it's libraries and compiler support.

Re: Back to the past
I meant 'saying that moc requires only C plus plus', but the plus sign doesn't show up.

Re: Back to the past
Quite right. I don't see how this can be said to require only C. That 's like QT saying that moc requires only C . If you want a better C, then it's already been done.