Re: for the GNOME hater in all of us...

[simon@example.com (Simon Cozens)]

Stephen J. Turnbull (lists.tlug):
>read GTK code, and I've attempted to read the docs.[1] 
>[1]  I'm  pretty fast reader, but not so fast I can read stuff that
>ain't written yet.

Stephen, I appreciate fully the fact that you're trolling, but the art
of trolling is to do so with information that is not easily
contradictable; here, you're just way too easy to defeat.

Game over:
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/gtk/index.html

That's a straight API reference. (And there are a bunch of other API
reference manuals where that came from) 

If you want a more book-style tutorial, well, read the book:
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/GGAD/gnome.html

There's also the GTK tutorial: http://www.gtk.org/tutorial
(Also available in Japanese:
http://plaza20.mbn.or.jp/~shimaki/linux/article/gtk.html)

Or the tutorials on creating entire GNOME applications, at
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/tutorials/gnome-libs/

Anyway, http://developer.gnome.org/doc/ is where it's all at.
Just two, very easy to find, clicks away from www.gnome.org, if you'd
care to look; just requires one tiny bit of initiative...

>Evidently you do _not_ build GNOME from scratch.  (I don't either, but
>I've never heard a good word for it from those who have done so.)

If that was a specific you, then of course I have done so. If it was
a general "you", then, no, I wouldn't encourage it. This is why we have
good people like Helix doing all that for us. I've built an entire Linux
distro from scratch before too. That wasn't fun either.

>Dividing things into multiple libraries just makes it worse; you can
>change your APIs _without_ breaking your own builds.  Unless the APIs
>are documented.  Sorry, Luke, the source is _not_ acceptable
>documentation for an API[3][4].  It will change tomorrow---"that's
>called development", eh, Simon?

Underdocumented it ain't.

>Taken completely out of context from a different message:
>
>    Simon> isolating and compartmentalising code is extremely useful
>    Simon> to avoid requiring a holistic understanding of [...]
>
>... anything at all.  Especially not the users' requirements!

Taken completely out of logic as well, it seems.

>Simon, I'm really surprised to see you advocating the MDPPDM (Modular
>Debian Project Perl Debasement Methodology).  That's precisely how
>they do it, as you very well know.

Yes, but they do it exceptionally badly.

-- 
The man who sees, on New Year's day, Mount Fuji, a hawk, and an eggplant
is forever blessed.
		-- Old Japanese proverb