Glade not being maintained by GTK developers seems a lot like not wanting to eat your own dogfood.

But to be fair, I'd never want to maintain an app written in C either.

@mjog Glade is a third-party app just like Geary. So, with that in mind:

Geary not being maintained by GTK developers seems a lot like not wanting to eat your own dogfood.

@exalm Except that GTK isn't a email library. That Geary the client uses Geary the engine is very much eating my own dog food. :)

I'm pretty sure that if the question "why do GTK maintainers not also maintain a GTK gui builder" was asked one of the main reasons given would be "because we don't have enough time", and that's hardly surprising, at least in part considering GTK is written in C.

If Geary was written in C, I wouldn't be maintaining it - I wouldn't have time.

@exalm Maybe to a C programmer writing XML by hand seems like a large enough productivity boost to be worth it - and it is! But to every one else except assembly programmers, it's a massive productivity hurdle.

@mjog I don't know why you consistently single out C really. I started from Vala, I always preferred hand-editing xml to glade. Also prefer editing xml to the Android ui designer. Also LaTeX to LibreOffice Writer. :p And find all the 3 much quicker and easier to use than the wysiwyg options. It's much easier to type a thing than to find one of the million buttons in the gui for me.

@flyingpimonster @exalm Also not strongly typed and not compile-time checked.

Give me a decent builder DSL any day. I defs prefer building widgets in Vala "manually" than having to write XML, or YAML, or whatever.

@mjog @flyingpimonster @exalm I think with GTK 3/4 I prefer writing XML to code just because code can do so much more and therefore it's easier to introduce unwanted bugs. However, I much prefer using Glade to writing XML by hand, especially at the experimentation stage where I don't quite know what UI I want. I already said this in a thread with Chris, I find the quick connection from idea to UI that Glade allows invaluable.

@exalm I survived the Java "put everything in XML" disaster and subsequent "pull everything out of XML and put it in annotations" recovery. The main take awa-from that was using a more verbose, run-time checked, weakly-typed language (XML) when you already have a strongly-typed, compiler-checked, comparatively succinct language (any modern high-level language, really) was a bad idea - you lose all of the very real QA benefits that the host language provides.

@exalm C of course flips that equation - it's not strongly typed, it's much more verbose than XML, so writing XML by hand by comparison seems like a good idea.

Of course, the GNOME stack depends on a whole bunch of libraries still written in C for $REASONS, and so from the perspective of the developers of those libraries (and anyone brave enough and with enough spare time to actually write apps in C) writing GUI defs in XML also seems like a good idea. For others though it's not.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!