Re: Questions regarding PGTK, high-dpi font-rendering, new X11-Warning

[xenodasein]

Nov 30, 2022, 10:13 by luangruo@yahoo.com:

> xenodasein@tutanota.de writes:
>
>> To give less headaches to the users, why else.  Have one binary,
>> do it dynamically.
>>
>
> Then will you volunteer to write the code that makes it safe?  And keep
> it working for the next 5 or so years, at least?  Regardless of what the
> GTK developers decide to do in the meantime?
>

First of all thank you for not going straight for it's not possible /
no one would want that / it's the wrong way / etc.

I tried to suggest last year a way to draw your own window content
without GTK, Lars said great you can start from vanilla X build,
you and Eli on the other hand gave the impression that you found it
extremely undesirable.  Which brings me to the point that this seems
like a question of what do you want done instead of how to.  I am
myself not at the point where I could pull this off alone, but I'm
getting there.  Others would attempt at things like that if they found
any enthusiasm about I'm sure.

You must keep in mind that big contributions like this must have a
foundation if there will be any hope of them even happening.  For
example I can almost imagine the answers if I suggested separating
some translation units instead of using #ifdef's every five lines,
so I won't don't worry.  Or take as example the recent discussion on
macros.  It won't make much of a difference indeed if some line is
a function or a macro, issue is the resistance to even simple changes
like that; it implies the impossibility of something not as simple.
You can say no it doesn't, regardless that is the picture it paints.
I remember Eli requesting not to change the location of some function
on the grounds that it will now be harder to find where it is.

So what is my point, when some person asks why do I need to binaries,
instead of saying things like "why not" say we need more people to
work with C parts, that's all.