Re: Would there be a drawback of using the same graphical toolkit on every platform?

[Arthur Miller]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> writes:
>
>> Is it?
>
> It is.
>
>> Several entire desktops and countless applications implemented with
>> Gtk for different OS:s certainly speak in favor of your arguments.
>
> Emacs is more complicated and demanding a program than most of those
> desktops and applications.  For instance, they typically don't support
> connecting to and displaying windows on multiple displays from the same
> process.

>> Cetainly it must be problem to Gtk and someone elses incompetence,
>> can't be that Emacs is using it in a manner it wasn't supposed to be
>> used.
>
> So we should limit our features to what GTK provides?  Just to name a
> few, that would entail removing support for multi-TTY, distinguishing
> "C-S-u" from "C-u", controlling the size of scroll bars, reliable
> control over frame size?
>
> If you want such an experience, by all means use the PGTK build.  But
> those features are important to many other people, so we cannot rely on
> PGTK.
>
>> So Gtk should be designed as Haiku? Otherwise it is a bug? :)
>
> I'm not, but the problem has nothing to do with how Emacs handles the
> toolkit event loop.
>
>> You can either do as you do and consider a framework design to be a
>> bug because it does not fit into your wishful expectations
>
> I expect a toolkit which people expect to become the basis of the Emacs
> GUI to be designed suitably, which is hardly wishful thinking.

I think you will have to reflect on what I have said. I have posted an article
about why Emacs is not very compatible with Gtk, and probably wouldn't be
compatible with Qt either, even if there was a suitable C interface Emacs could
use. We can certainly agree to disagree about the article, but you should
definitely reflect better over what I wrote and why. I didn't lobbied for Gtk to
become the one and only toolkit to use, I just opposed your rhetorics about Gtk
bugs, "devs strange ideas" and what not, and the impression you left on the
person. I am not trying to be impolite or unrespectful, but I find your
arguments and rhetorics often dogmatic.

>> or you can recognize that the design does not fit a particular
>> application in this case Emacs. There is nothing wrong with that, none
>> framework is required to fit each and every use case in
>> existence. Emacs uses Gtk in a way it is not supposed to and that
>> creates some friction.
>
> Whether or not it's suitable for other applications, the friction
> between Emacs and GTK cannot be resolved, so that indeed makes GTK
> unsuitable as the sole window system for Emacs.

Sure we can agree on that one. But you used rhetorics that left impression it
depends on bugs, and Gtk devs having their own strange ideas about
something. Those are different reasons but not being suitable by design. Read my
very first replay in this thread, it should have been clear there.

>> I don't understand why you need to blame that on Gtk? I am not even
>> very fond of Gtk myself, but there is no reason to be unfair.
>
> When a toolkit that is part of the GNU project makes deliberate design
> decisions which prevents it from being used to implement Emacs, I think
> it is quite right to complain.

Why would it be a right to complain? There are many other libraries and
frameworks that are not suitable for use in Emacs. It is no ones obligation to
make their software fit someones particular needs. I am quite sure they are
trying to make it usable for the most applications out there. If Emacs is not
one of those, so be it. But it is not their obligation to make it usable for
each and every application under the Sun either, just like Emacs does not have
obligation to fit into everyones wishes and desires either.