code in cvs is broken

Linas Vepstas
Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:28:35 -0600

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:56:20AM -0600, Bill Gribble was heard to remark:
> On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 14:15, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> > I'm not really concerned that its somehow 'doing the wrong thing',
> > as the general malaise about making C code smarter than it desrves to
> > be.  I'd rather keep the c code as dumb as possible, and have the 
> > scheme code push it around like a wet noodle.  Trying to make the 
> > C code smart by using guile just seems like an invitation to trouble.
> I tend to agree with this.  Up until now, the main reason for C code
> calling Guile functions is that we haven't used the Guile bindings for
> Gtk/Gnome, so we had to write callbacks and such for dialogs in C, but
> then call out to Scheme to get the real work done. 
> In my out-of-tree development I have been using guile-gtk and libglade
> together extensively and I am VERY happy with this combination.  It
> really lets you get away from C for almost everything except primitive
> bits. 
> I would like to see much of the stuff in src/gnome be rewritten in
> Scheme, mainly because GUI code is so much smaller and clearer when you
> have anonymous functions and closures available for callbacks.

1) this is another 5 month old conversation ...

2) I wouldn't disagree with your final conclusions, except for a 
   "if it aint broke, don't fix it" mantra.  The code in src/gnome
   may not be ideal, but it seems to work, and I'm not aware of
   any strong reason that would lead to it's re-write.


pub  1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984  3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933