Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Reply
Thread Tools
johnkzin's Avatar
johnkzin is offline johnkzin
2008-05-21 , 09:12
Posts: 1,878 | Thanked: 646 times | Joined on Sep 2007 @ San Jose, CA
#21
Originally Posted by fms View Post
'Cause let us be frank: GTK sucks as a framework. QT has its own problems (such as ABI that changes with every new version), but at least it uses C++ to manage complexity. GTK developers appear to be so averse to C++, that they have made a whole new language that looks vaguely like C++ but isn't:

http://live.gnome.org/Vala/FAQ
Well, it couldn't possibly be WORSE than C++ ... poorly conceived load of crap that that language is. I mean, really, what self respecting knowledgeable programmer _defends_ C++? That's like talking about the merits of smoking: "Well, it's not as sure-fire suicide as shooting yourself in the head!"

If you want something that manages complexity use a REAL OOPL, not a half-assed OOPL that wouldn't know dynamic/late binding if it was bit in the *** by a dynamic binding runtime environment.

C++ : Programming Languages :: MS-Windows : Operating Systems
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to johnkzin For This Useful Post:
fms is offline fms
2008-05-21 , 09:53
Posts: 1,418 | Thanked: 1,541 times | Joined on Feb 2008
#22
Originally Posted by johnkzin View Post
Well, it couldn't possibly be WORSE than C++ ... poorly conceived load of crap that that language is.
While this is kind of off-topic as far as this thread is concerned, I have to admit that some aspects of C++, such as data and functionality encapsulation, are actually useful, especially for a complex programming framework like GTK or QT. Claiming C++ to be a standard of OOP implementation is, of course, silly. It's not real OOP.
__________________
Computer and Console Emulators for Maemo, Symbian, and more.
Pack Rat: The Maemo Package Aggregator.
 
kotzkind's Avatar
kotzkind is offline kotzkind
2008-05-21 , 12:07
Posts: 117 | Thanked: 22 times | Joined on Apr 2007
#23
Originally Posted by fms View Post
'Cause let us be frank: GTK sucks as a framework. QT has its own problems (such as ABI that changes with every new version), but at least it uses C++ to manage complexity.
QT developers: Everything must be C++!
GTK+: Everything in that language thats best for it.

For the most things C++ is overloaded and languages like python make more sense.
 
fms is offline fms
2008-05-21 , 12:14
Posts: 1,418 | Thanked: 1,541 times | Joined on Feb 2008
#24
Originally Posted by kotzkind View Post
GTK+: Everything in that language thats best for it.
Which is, most of the time, C. And of course, you can bind QT to Python:

http://www.riverbankcomputing.co.uk/.../pyqt4ref.html
__________________
Computer and Console Emulators for Maemo, Symbian, and more.
Pack Rat: The Maemo Package Aggregator.
 
Bundyo's Avatar
Bundyo is offline Bundyo
2008-05-21 , 12:40
Posts: 4,707 | Thanked: 4,643 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Bulgaria
#25
Or Vala
__________________
Technically, there are three determinate states the cat could be in: Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
 
krisse's Avatar
krisse is offline krisse
2008-05-21 , 13:17
Posts: 1,540 | Thanked: 1,045 times | Joined on Feb 2007
#26
Originally Posted by fms View Post
It is not as simple as just rewriting the UI. UI is almost the easiest part. The cellular comm stack, the real time framework, the bluetooth stack, the power management code are the hard parts. Symbian has them nailed down, but Linux does not. Nokia did have a lot of headstart with Maemo though.
Yup, this is the most important thing to understand.

You can't just slap an OS on top of a phone, you need to do a heck of a lot of work on the behind-the-scenes stuff such as allowing the computing part of the device talk to the telephony part. It's not a trivial task.

This is probably why the iPhone had such restricted telephony features, because Apple were totally new to the phone world and they hadn't been able to fully develop OSX as a mobile OS. It will take time for them to match the features available on existing platforms.

The success of Symbian is partly because it was developed for mobile devices from the ground up, and they've spent years enhancing it entirely with phones in mind. Symbian has never been used on anything other than phones, and it's jointly owned by mobile phone manufacturers. It's the world's most developed pure phone OS, which is why so many smartphones use it.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to krisse For This Useful Post:
mikevraziel is offline mikevraziel
2008-05-21 , 14:22
Posts: 42 | Thanked: 24 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#27
Even Reuters claims the same,

http://ca.reuters.com/article/techno...07696020080520
 
Karel Jansens's Avatar
Karel Jansens is offline Karel Jansens
2008-05-21 , 15:33
Posts: 3,220 | Thanked: 326 times | Joined on Oct 2005 @ "Almost there!" (Monte Christo, Count of)
#28
Originally Posted by krisse View Post
The success of Symbian is partly because it was developed for mobile devices from the ground up, and they've spent years enhancing it entirely with phones in mind. Symbian has never been used on anything other than phones, and it's jointly owned by mobile phone manufacturers. It's the world's most developed pure phone OS, which is why so many smartphones use it.
Um... You do know that Symbian started life as Psion's SIBO and EPOC operating systems and that the only reason it's such a good telephony OS is because Psion made a heck of an OS to start with?

To say that Symbian hasn't been used on anything but phones is only correct in the sense that it wasn't called "Symbian" when it was installed on non-phones.
__________________
Watch out Nokia, Pandora's box has opened (sorta)...
I do love explaining cryptic sigs, but for the impatient: http://www.openpandora.org/
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Karel Jansens For This Useful Post:
Benson's Avatar
Benson is offline Benson
2008-05-21 , 16:52
Posts: 4,930 | Thanked: 2,272 times | Joined on Oct 2007
#29
I can't speak for krisse, but it seems to me that he knows that; note the distinction "developed for mobile devices" vs. "enhancing it entirely with phones in mind". Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It looks like the kind of technically correct, but minimally attention-drawing, sort of statement I make when I don't feel like explaining the whole back-story of something. It also looks like blind luck, of course.

Krisse?
__________________
World's first inductively-charged N900!
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Benson For This Useful Post:
Karel Jansens's Avatar
Karel Jansens is offline Karel Jansens
2008-05-21 , 17:59
Posts: 3,220 | Thanked: 326 times | Joined on Oct 2005 @ "Almost there!" (Monte Christo, Count of)
#30
Originally Posted by Benson View Post
I can't speak for krisse, but it seems to me that he knows that; note the distinction "developed for mobile devices" vs. "enhancing it entirely with phones in mind". Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It looks like the kind of technically correct, but minimally attention-drawing, sort of statement I make when I don't feel like explaining the whole back-story of something. It also looks like blind luck, of course.

Krisse?
I just wanted to make clear that Symbian wasn't so much developed for phones, as adapted to them. In that aspect at least, it's not much different from Linux. Or OSX for that matter.
__________________
Watch out Nokia, Pandora's box has opened (sorta)...
I do love explaining cryptic sigs, but for the impatient: http://www.openpandora.org/
 
Reply
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:05.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top