Talk:X Window Programming/GTK+

i moved this article to GIMP Toolkit since i think this is a clearer solution than just using a wrong/incomplete name for technical reasons. --Pythagoras1 22:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i propose we move it back. according to Announcements for January, plus signs are now allowed in article names. --Unforgettableid | talk to me 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I really must need glasses, but I cannot see this announcement! Would you mind telling me where on Announcements this is? --Lox (t,c) 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't remember where I read it, but it's true. Move done. enochlau (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

GIMP Toolkit/Ruby Bindings
(this discussion was copied from my talk page) - Motor (talk) 09:54:20, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Why did you reverse my edit to GIMP Toolkit ? The information that it's architecturally unfit for garbage-collected language is true, important and relevant to in the section about support for programming languages. Taw 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because with the edit (and edit summary) you were trying to make a case, and not writing a encyclopedia article (and yes, I read the link you included). As I said in my edit summary, wikipedia isn't for grinding axes, nor is it a surrogate for mailing list technical disputes. Also, considering the link you provided, I'm pretty sure it counts as original research - Motor (talk) 04:46:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to make any case, I'm merely documenting the facts, and they're not disputed by anyone.


 * According to your own link, they do seem to be disputed -- if not the fact that you can provoke a memory leak (which is hardly unique), then certainly the severity of the problem. Not to mention, this isn't a highly technical article (nor is it developer documentation, or a language bindings howto).


 * I and Ruby/GNOME2 developers found a problem that requires a change to Gtk architecture to fix correctly.


 * I'm not disputing that you have a technical issue with GTK while writing Ruby bindings (who doesn't), nor am I interested in defending GTK developers, merely stating that Wikipedia is not the place to complain about specific "bugs". Does the official GTK documentation acknowledge the problem, if so, perhaps you could quote that?


 * One of the Gtk developers that answered agreed that the problem exists, but he's clear they're not going to fix it. So nobody's disputing the facts. The problem (cooperation across GC boundaries) is not unusual, it should be documented in general in any decent reference on GC,


 * Your edit was not documenting the issue. It was complaing about it. Your post to the mailing list documents the issue, and that's where it belongs. If you think it hasn't had due attention, then repost it. In fact, you might find it useful to include a link to your edited version of the article. You can find a link to it via the page history (sorry if you already know this, I'm just covering bases).


 * and in the Gtk case it seems it has been already discussed, even as early as 1998, wrt Guile bindings. If you cared to read No original research, you'd see quite clearly that this has nothing to do with my edit. Taw 08:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read it... it is original research. You think you've found a big technical problem with GTK. Reading the link it's clear that he does not agree with you about the severity of the problem, in fact he says quite clearly that "they" designed around it. None of this is relevant -- you are quoting your own research on a mailing list as a source. As I said, the mailing list is the place for this. - Motor (talk) 09:03:52, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Peer review of a related article
I submitted X Window core protocol for peer review, as I intend to candidate it for featured status. I would appreciate comments (Peer review page). - Liberatore(T) 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)