• Bloody Harry@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    wait, what? I’ve had a GIMP 2.x for at least 15 years now. they can’t just… increase the number?? it’s part of the program’s name now

        • aard@kyu.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess we can give GIMP a pass to be a bit slower in migrating to new versions of the _G_IMP _T_ool_K_it than others…

          • winety@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The GTK3 port has been in the making for a very long time. Long before anyone even mentioned GTK4. Porting an application to a different GUI toolkit is a lot of work.

            • And it shouldn’t be. Sure, there are some new features you may want to take advantage of, but it’s lamentable that GTK doesn’t try harder to maintain backwards compatability.

              You know who does major version changes well? Go. Excellent backwards compatible over a decade of very active development, and when there are recommended or required changes, the compiler provides tooling to update source code to the new API.

              • Aatube@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                According to the GTK team, trying to maintain backwards compatibility dragged the whole project down. I agree that a basics’ automatic porting tool would’ve been nice.

              • TheOPtimal@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                ქართული
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                GTK2->GTK3 was a major leap. For something like a GUI toolkit, changes and advancements are inevitable. A GTK4 port would be much less difficult, as the developer-facing changes are an order of magnitude smaller.