undefined | Better HN

0 points_dh545y ago0 comments

If GTK is operating in a situation where there is no “rich corporate force” to sponsor the maintenance of old versions then it is a strategic error for them to break backwards compatibility.

At this point I cannot imagine a sane third party application developer choosing to build on top of GTK. The clock starts ticking on the life of your application the moment you choose GTK.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

cycloptic5y ago· 4 in thread

The alternative would be never refactoring anything and allowing technical debt and complexity to balloon out of control, which would also be a strategic error for a small project without many resources.

The ticking clock you're referring to is real, but it applies to any open source library you're depending on that you aren't contributing anything to, not just GTK. It can't be avoided just by switching to another open source toolkit. If it really bothers you, start contributing and help out!

hda25y ago

Contributing to each dependency you use is not realistic. What instead happens is that people leave GTK for more stable dependencies. This is what I did. That's what many likely choose to do.

cycloptic5y ago

Jumping from dependency to dependency forever hoping that someone else is always going to do the right thing is not a viable option long term, even moreso if you want to build a large application that lasts a while.

Realistically, most people who decide to ditch GTK seem to switch to Qt and either start contributing there or pay for consulting/LTS/commercial licenses eventually, because that is the only comparably modern option for native widgets on Linux/BSD.

1 more reply

tinus_hn5y ago

It’s not like Google starting a new framework and abandoning another every six months. GTK2 was released in 2002 and is still under maintenance.

CyberRabbi5y ago

> The alternative would be never refactoring anything and allowing technical debt and complexity to balloon out of control

It’s simply false that retaining API backwards compatibility prevents refactoring and necessarily causes technical debt to balloon.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse