[_d7dt]

Please don't assume bad faith. Glade was not "killed," there are technical reasons why Glade cannot be used for GTK4 (I can give more detail if you want). There is currently a new tool being developed by a Glade maintainer, catch this guadec talk later this month if you want to know more: https://events.gnome.org/event/9/contributions/191/

Nobody is particularly happy about having to edit the XML directly but it's the best option right now until the new tools stabilize.

[mumblemumble]

I think that this might speak to the deeper problem that a lot of people have experienced with GTK: stability. The project isn't a huge well-funded company with lots of vendor-lock in like Microsoft is; it can't afford to be rethinking how the GUI toolkit should work every few years like Microsoft does. (Or continuing to support and maintain all the old no-longer-favored GUI frameworks like Microsoft does.)

It's great that GTK4 has decided to commit to API stability, but, at this point, it may be too little, too late as far as the project's reputation among many developers is concerned. Having to lose a venerable tool like Glade to get to the API-stable version doesn't exactly take the edge off.

[_d7dt]

I've posted about this before, but if you want GTK and you believe API stability is the most important thing then you should just use GTK3. The API there is frozen. I'm not sure what "reputation" you're referring to but if GTK does not meet your needs, and Qt (or something else) does, then I think that's great for you, you should just use that.

[entropy1111]

GNOME being slow and not having basic features like thumbnails in the file picker after almost 18 years was often attributed, by their maintainers, to be caused by GTK3 limitations. Even now Glade still needs a lot of "volunteering" to be production ready for GTK3. I don't use GTK anymore, this is my opinion after reading a lot about it and seeing recommendations like "if you need documentation just read existing code", "why is Glade missing X or Y? just copy some XML node, just edit the XML and pray".

Anyway who cares, maybe GTK4 is good and new GTK threads will not be full of people talking about how bad it was. But why not move the tools together with the rest? I know, it's open source, lack of maintainers, but I wouldn't dare to declare my toolkit stable until basic tools work. Qt is also guilty of doing that in some ways but at least the previous version is still production ready and they move really fast.

I don't know I'll ever get over my irrational anger about how they handle(d) GTK.

[badsectoracula]

> if you want GTK and you believe API stability is the most important thing then you should just use GTK3. The API there is frozen

That is certainly not a solution, you just postpone the problem.

The real solution would be the Gtk4 to be 100% backwards compatible at both the API and ABI level with Gtk3 and similarly with Gtk5, Gtk6, etc.

Otherwise you're just subscribing to wasting your time - it might be now or it might be 5 years from now, it doesn't matter however as it will happen unless the Gtk developers finally decide to stop breaking their library every few years.

(of course don't get me wrong, it is their library and they can do whatever they please with it, they are giving it for free and they are not beholden to anyone - however that doesn't mean others like to have their code broken and waste time that they could use to improve their applications instead)

[mumblemumble]

Alternatively GTK3 could get a higher level of ongoing support. That was what I was alluding to when I referenced Microsoft. For example, WinForms has technically been superseded for ages now, but, while it's not necessarily getting any big new features, WinForms apps still look decent on newer versions of Windows, benefit from things like updates to the common dialog boxes, and continue to be well-supported in new versions of the developer tools. So one doesn't necessarily have to have a lot of anxiety about leaving an old WinForms app on WinForms. With GTK3, on the other hand, I would guess that it's going to get the absolute bare minimum of love, and probably become a liability rather sooner than I might like, because the project simply doesn't have the resources to maintain a higher level of support.

And yeah, you're right, the GTK team isn't beholden to anyone. But... GUI code is expensive to write and expensive to maintain. So a GUI toolkit can have an outsize impact on the health of projects that use it. There's value in talking about things like this publicly, so that anyone who's shopping for a GUI toolkit can have a better understanding of what they might be getting into.

[badsectoracula]

Ideally they could have done that with Gtk2 which would continue on to Gtk3 and Gtk4 without breaking backwards compatibility.

Of course yes, the next best thing wrt. backwards compatibility is at least not breaking what works - but IMO that is a waste of time for both the Gtk developers (sure, it'd be self inflicted, but still) who would need to support two (or three or four or however many times they decide to break their own APIs) libraries that do essentially the same thing in different ways, and for the developers who at the end of the day will most likely need to move on to the next version at some point to gain access to new features that they may need - so they'll spend that porting time anyway.

> And yeah, you're right, the GTK team isn't beholden to anyone. But... GUI code is expensive to write and expensive to maintain. So a GUI toolkit can have an outsize impact on the health of projects that use it. There's value in talking about things like this publicly, so that anyone who's shopping for a GUI toolkit can have a better understanding of what they might be getting into.

Indeed and this is why i mention my issues with backwards compatibility whenever i see it being relevant.

I do believe the Gtk developers are free to do whatever they want as they are not beholden to my -or anyone else's- wishes for stability, especially when they give out such an otherwise high quality library for free. However that is from their perspective.

From the library users' (that is the developers who use the library) perspective however there are additional issues, like all the time you spent learning the library (breaking the API invalidates your own knowledge which is something that is also important - unless you plan to somehow live forever it makes sense to want to avoid this sort of "knowledge churn" :-P) and writing the code that uses it (important especially for framework-style libraries like Gtk that put their tendrils everywhere in your application). And even if someone believes (wrongly, IMO) that commercial developers can afford all that time, it still is an issue with FLOSS since the vast majority of which is developed during its developers' free time: that time would have better been used to improve the applications instead of keeping up with their dependencies' breakage (e.g. XFCE or... Gimp :-P).

And of course from the end users' perspective it also means that even if the developers decide to drop a program, they can keep using it for a long time without having to worry about the libraries their program depends on getting stale (since they are linked dynamically), not supporting new features (like, e.g. Wayland - AFAIK Gtk2 apps do not support it natively and chances are if a new display server is made Gtk3 apps wont support it either) or having unfixable security issues (for the applications where that makes sense at least).

But yeah, Gtk developers - or any library developers - do not need to care about all of that nor they have to really. As you wrote, it is the developers who decide or not to use a library that care about such things mostly.

Sadly at last on Linux there aren't that many choices: of the "mainstream" toolkits only Gtk and Qt exist. Gtk is, well, Gtk and Qt cannot provide "perfect" ABI compatibility even if they wanted to because of C++ (there are some hacks that could be made but i am not aware of any project doing such a thing - i think only Haiku does something similar with proxy libraries that forward the GCC C++ 2.95 calls to modern GCC C++ calls for BeOS compatibility). But Qt is also a different beast, they are a middleware company with different priorities, the people that pay money on it (and thus affect these priorities) do not care much about providing a stable platform and can affort to waste time on upgrades. From other toolkits there is also Motif but that fell out of favor and got opensourced way too late to make much of a difference - its API/ABI is stable though and has been stable for decades, but that means nothing when barely anyone uses it or develops for it.

Personally i use Lazarus and LCL. LCL uses a variety of backends, kinda like wxWidgets, but unlike wxWidgets it doesn't break its API. This pushes the issue of keeping up to date to the LCL developers (who could have spent their time in fixing LCL's other issues - of which are many - instead) but that is how things are.

I think Java and SWT might be another stable solution for a native UI, AFAIK this never broke backwards compatibility either... or at least it never did back when i looked into it several years ago. Looking at some examples in their site, several of them seem to be somewhat old so it probably is stable (isn't it great how when you do not break your API left and right you get to also get time to build better documentation that you don't have to invalidate it after a while?)

[jcelerier]

> Qt cannot provide "perfect" ABI compatibility even if they wanted to because of C++

That does not really matter in practice though. I ship a Qt app as AppImage, it works fine from CentOS 7 to the very latest ArchLinux. I just ship libc++ along with it - which is the same that I have to do in Windows anyways.

[shock]

> Nobody is particularly happy about having to edit the XML directly but it's the best option right now until the new tools stabilize.

You are proving GP's point for him:

> So I rather waste my time on Earth on platforms that value good UI/UX tooling.

The fact that that Glade was deprecated without a replacement being ready means exactly that GNOME does not "value good UI/UX tooling".

[_d7dt]

What you've said is really not correct, at all. For one, Glade is not deprecated in the sense that it doesn't work any more, it still works okay with GTK3, however it has a number of limitations that may make it difficult to use (which it always had, nothing has changed here). Two, a replacement is being worked on, I'm really not sure what your criticism is besides "go faster" which, I'm sure we all wish we could write code faster and have it work perfectly and do everything the first time, but that's not realistic.

Edit: Just to be clear here, in my opinion the new tools will likely end up being a large improvement on Glade. Glade is a pretty old application that by design does a number of weird things that don't match current best practices, you can see some of them if you read the blog post that was posted above.

[freedomben]

> The fact that that Glade was deprecated without a replacement being ready means exactly that GNOME does not "value good UI/UX tooling".

That's a false dichotomy. It could be (and I believe is) that things are a tradeoff. They obviously value good tooling (what developer doesn't? and look at the docs), but they value other things too and had to make a decision. With limited resources you can't do it all.

[qwerty456127]

> Nobody is particularly happy about having to edit the XML directly

I wouldn't mind editing a concise XML dialect (XML really doesn't have to be monstrous, a dialect it can be designed with humans in mind). A visual designer producing XML files as its output doesn't actually solve the problem. VisualStudio's developer experience (where you can change everything on the fly, go to the relevant piece of code in a click or two, refactor something and get it also changed in the designer etc) feels really seamless and fluent while PyQt with PyCharm+QtDesigner seems nice but not nearly like that. It seems to me nothing can be considered a serious and worthy improvement until we have an actual integrated visual RAD IDE. I would immediately buy the paid version of PyCharm (I'm using the community edition if they built a good and well-integrated visual designer in it, for whatever a desktop toolkit they prefer).

[pjmlp]

Thanks for the link, I will watch it when the opportunity comes.

However it is like the sibling comments mention, this hasn't been properly managed as message to the UI/UX community.

So when someone used to Forms, WPF/Blend, Qt Designer, Interface Builder, Delphi, C++ Builder, Swift UI, Flutter, JetPack Composer,... sees blogs and tutorials where .ui files are written by hand and direct use of GtkBuilder is praised, eventually all interest is gone.

Anyway, thanks for the link and for jumping in

[_d7dt]

That blog is just one developer's opinion, not an official statement. Although I will say I share the opinion, Glade messes up my ui files and I can't recommend using it if you want to use any newer widgets. It has always had those problems, but now with GTK4 it's no longer really worth it to try to work around them.

Also, Glade is not really even used by GNOME designers that much, what they do is make mockups in some other tool (usually Inkscape) and then have the developers implement it. I don't know about other GTK based desktops, though I think some Elementary developers are working on this: https://github.com/akiraux/Akira