On 19 June 2012 11:20, pancake <pancake_AT_youterm.com> wrote:
> On 06/19/12 17:11, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>>
>> On 19 June 2012 09:48, Luis Anaya <papoanaya_AT_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey_AT_gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Is anyone planning to port surf for gtk3?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once I have a system that uses GTK3, I'd have to do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> are you from the past?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty close: I use Slackware.
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering if there are any advantages to using gtk3?
>>>
>>> My 2 cents... without any support material.
>>>
>>> 1. The biggest motivation would be library support going forward if the
>>> gtk2 libraries get deprecated.
>>
>> Yes, I still have Qt3 and GTK1 on my systems :-) in fact they work
>> quite well for the applications that use them! I would say most
>> systems will still have gtk2 in 3-4 years.
>>
>>> 2. I am not sure if there are any performance improvement in
>>> execution. My gut feeling is that it will not matter much.
>>
>> My feeling is that GTK3 is probably slower, though I don't have any
>> meat to back it up with. Though, it could be better because they're
>> removed a lot of deprecated crap (while adding more crap)
>>
>>> 3. Considering that the GTK1 libraries were being delivered for a long
>>> time after the GTK2 ones were available in Linux distros, I would expect
>>> a long phasing time for these as well.
>>
>> What about using and IFDEF for GTK2/3 stuff? I work on a terminal
>> emulator called svte [0] that was originally written for GTK3. Support
>> for GTK3 is a small patch, consisting of some basic renaming of GDK
>> keysyms and some other semantic stuff. It's not very suckless but
>> supporting GTK2 and GTK3 is realistic.
>>
>> All of that, to say - we cannot (and I don't think anyone does)
>> pretend that surf's underlying core doesn't suck - glib is a
>> nightmare to work with and Qt isn't much better. the whole g-blob is
>> terrible, but we wrap it up and pretend it is pretty. I sometimes wish
>> that there was a suckless widget set that worked well but only did
>> that - widgets. Then it would be fun to port webkit to that widget set
>> :-) ... anyway i'll stop tangenting.
>
>
> http://hg.suckless.org/swk
>
> feel free to contribute ;)
>>
>> Calvin
>>
>> [0] http://code.google.com/p/svte
>>
I have played around with swk - though the last commit was 2 years ago
and garnered no real support.
Thanks for reminding me of this :-)
Calvin
Received on Tue Jun 19 2012 - 17:22:12 CEST