[Lazarus] Suggestion again: remove GTK1 from IDE and LCL

[Marc Santhoff]

Am Freitag, den 04.06.2010, 00:16 +0200 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
> On 3 June 2010 20:39, Marc Santhoff wrote:
> > No it isn't pointless. You forget about embedded computers, they are not
> > growing over time and are running on small amounts of resources, e.g. a
> > 233 MHz Geode CPU having 64 MB of RAM. I wouldn't even dare to try GTK2
> > on that little things.
> 
> Then switch to fpGUI for embedded systems. It works perfectly and is
> low on resources and small size executables. Plus fpGUI is a lot more
> modern in looks than GTK1 - and fpGUI is still actively being
> developed.  :)

Hm, maybe next time. When I started to write the programs in question I
didn't even know there is fpGUI. I think there wasn't at all. ;)

But if I really would have to change the code base used for those
programs or their future descendants at all they will definitively not
be dependent on only one widget set alone.

> But yes, I kind of see your point. But do you also know that LCL-GTK1
> is *not* being maintained at all any more. You might complain, but
> clearly nobody is actually using LCL-GTK1 any more because so far it
> is only I that noticed that LCL-GTK1 is currently broken. Most of the
> times it can't compile, and when it does you can't even us it in
> applications, because the simplest program will make it crash at
> runtime (as my previous posts highlight and error log showed).
> 
> So if I was still maintaining an application that must use GTK1, I'll
> definitely stay with whatever Lazarus LCL-GTK1 version was the most
> stable. So far, that seems to be v0.9.26.2

Sure, at the cost of having to care for one more installation of IDE and
compiler, remembering aka documenting the differences and so on.

> > But what exactly is the benefit of doing all this work?
> 
> 1) It will be the start of cleaning up the spaghetti code required for GTK2
> 2) The cleanup will probably allow LCL-GTK2 to be easier to maintain. Most here
>    complain that it's a mess.
> 3) Ending up with clearer code, it might even make LCL-GTK2 less buggy (like
>    it's counterpart LCL-Qt - which is much younger code by the way).

Looks like mostly viewn with the maintainers hat on. My point of view
is more like the "api users" view as a programmer not changing the
underlying widget set itself. Besides that, "maybe" and "might" do not
count. ;)

> 4) Why advertise a feature that is constantly broken. Lazarus is already well
>    know for being buggy - so why add fuel to the flames.

Never heard that. Do you sell lazarus? ;)

> 5) Code evolves. Out with the old, in with the new.

Really good code doesn't need to evolve. ;)
But you're right, every season brings a new fashion and style.

-- 
Marc Santhoff <M.Santhoff at web.de>