Projects / GOB

GOB

GObject Builder (GOB) is a simple preprocessor for easily creating GObjects (glib objects). It reads a class description file with inline C code and produces .c and .h object files for you. It allows you to easily use most of the features of the GObject system and avoids typos by reducing the amount of code needed. In general, the amount of code is about the same as for OO languages such as Java or C++, but you still have to only use C and you get all the power of the GObject system.

Tags
Licenses

RSS Recent releases

Release Notes: GTK3 support, names of signals and properties, and fixes for deprecated functions.

  •  19 Dec 2012 23:10

Release Notes: Bugfixes.

Release Notes: This release adds ctop (works like alltop but only in the C file), build fixes for Cygwin, and some minor fixes.

  •  03 Apr 2010 03:37

Release Notes: This release fixes segfaults, has the correct defaults for floating point values, and handles DOS format input files.

  •  21 Jul 2009 17:06

    Release Notes: Function attributes. Simple destroy, finalize, and construct override support. An afterdecls C block. Minor other fixes/improvements.

    RSS Recent comments

    12 Apr 2001 23:33 vicious Thumbs up

    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.

    12 Apr 2001 17:48 murrayc

    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.

    12 Apr 2001 14:16 vicious Thumbs up

    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.

    26 Feb 2001 11:56 murrayc

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

    26 Feb 2001 11:54 murrayc

    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.

    Screenshot

    Project Spotlight

    PHP Email address validation component

    PHP class to verify if a e-mail address is valid.

    Screenshot

    Project Spotlight

    GNU pop3d

    A small, fast, and efficient POP3 server with virtual domains.