[badsectoracula]

I have issues with WPF too since i think Microsoft should have focused on improving Win32 instead of wasting their resources (and, most importantly, the time of everyone who felt at the time they had to keep up - see the Joel article i linked elsewhere), but bringing up WPF doesn't serve anything aside from muddling the discussion.

The only areas where i see WPF doing better is that at least it allows merging Win32 and WPF code, so an application can improve partially if they see WPF as a valid path forward - and it doesn't present itself as Win32 v2 so that Win32 development can continue independently (remember that i wrote that WPF is something you can at least ignore). None of these are the case with Gtk though.

But again, mentioning WPF here serves no purpose, what i wrote so far should be clear enough by itself.

[Crysstalis]

I only mention WPF because you brought up Win32. If you can acknowledge it is not completely the same then maybe do not bring that up at all. The drawing part of the Win32 API is actually probably closer to Xlib and Xaw than it is to GTK. And those libraries have not really changed in 30 years or so. With some hacking I bet you could get Xaw widgets to display in a GTK4 window.

That Joel article is more of a rant than a coherent statement, it is not reasonable to ask developers to stop working on new APIs and libraries.

>None of these are the case with Gtk though.

But this is incorrect, development can continue independently on old versions of GTK.

[badsectoracula]

> I only mention WPF because you brought up Win32.

I brought up Win32 because it retains backwards compatibility for decades and still gets bug fixes and new features, WPF is as relevant to the discussion as Qt would be.

> The drawing part of the Win32 API is actually probably closer to Xlib and Xaw than it is to GTK.

The Win32 API provides way more functionality than Xlib (Xaw is a separate toolkit and unrelated to Gtk) and is closer to a toolkit like Gtk.

> That Joel article is more of a rant than a coherent statement, it is not reasonable to ask developers to stop working on new APIs and libraries.

What Joel asked (well, he didn't ask, jut put forward) was about wasting developers' time chasing new APIs that do the same things like the old APIs because they are afraid they're going to remain behind and the old APIs will stop getting any form of support or development.

Like what Gtk does to older major versions, basically.

> But this is incorrect, development can continue independently on old versions of GTK.

The entire idea of having an "old version of Gtk" that some 3rd party developer(s) continue on to keep backwards compatibility could only be a possibility because the actual Gtk developers do not care about keeping backwards compatibility.