[Mono-dev] C bindings VS C++ bindings (Gtk# vs. Kimono?)

[Brandon Perry]

I much prefer the Qyoto/Kimono bindings for cross-platform because of
it's elegance and it looks much better IMHO on Windows than Gtk#. I
haven't run into /too many/ bugs (just a couple, they might have even
been resolved by now) with the Qyoto/Kimono bindings. Those are really
the only reasons why I prefer Qyoto/Kimono over Gtk#.

On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 16:27 +0200, "Andrés G. Aragoneses [ knocte ]"
wrote:
> I've come to know that Qyoto/Kimono bindings are automatically generated 
> from C++ sources. I'm not sure about Gtk# process but I guess it's 
> semi-automatic, based on something called GAPI, right? My guess is based 
> on the fact that currently many bugs are still being solved on this 
> binding. Are these bug a consequence of dealing with a C binding instead 
> of an automatic C++ one?
> 
> We are planning on creating new programs in our company that deal on top 
> of stable and multiplatform libraries. We have discarded WinForms 
> because it's not mature enough on Mono, and because it still depends a 
> bit on Microsoft (it's not in the ECMA spec), but now we must decide 
> between Kimono or Gtk# (wx.NET is not claimed to be used for many people 
> in the community to be considered an option, and because it's UI is not 
> consistent across all OSs).
> 
> What factual arguments would you arise for this decision? (Remember, we 
> want stability, maintainability[3], and portability[1], and we don't 
> want a Gnome VS KDE flamewar. Thanks)
> 
> 
> [1] This means that the fact that recent Gtk+/Gtk# bugs[2] on Windows 
> have not attracted much attention, is not a good indicative for us to 
> focus on Gtk# but rather on Kimono.
> [2] Because of these bugs, there have been people that even had 
> "community builds" of Gtk# 2.10 for Windows, and we don't want to depend 
> on that stability.
> [3] There also have been some posts from Aaron Bockover regarding some 
> intricacies about GTK Themes strange behaviours. Do you know if QT 
> themes are much more elegant and bugless?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> 	Andrés	[ knocte ]
> 
> 
> P.S. I am not claiming that I have any idea at all about the technical 
> details of this issue. I am just here for learning, so please, send any 
> corrections you have. Thanks.
>