Re: Would there be a drawback of using the same graphical toolkit on every platform?

[Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com>]

emacsq <laszlomail@protonmail.com> writes:

>>
>> It isn't available on Haiku and doesn't work very well on MS-Windows,
>> macOS, and even GNU/Linux.
>>
>
> Thanks, I didn't use GTK on Windows or Mac, so I just assumed it
> worked well on those too after 20 years of development.
>
> It's strange that after all that time there are still such rough
> edges.

Nah. Gtk is fine on it's own, it is just not designed to be used the way it is
used in Emacs. For the Qt that come up in later comments, there is nothing wrong
to rely on a C++ library or libraries, since Emacs is designed to work with GCC
almost exclusively. For example, Emacs already rely on a Rust library
(librsvg). However Qt does not have C interface, it is C++ exclusive library,
and Emacs would probably have same issues with Qt as with Gtk. That is because
Emacs reverse the framowork roles, which does not work always well with toolkits
that are designed to be in driving seat of the application main loop and
display. There is an interesting post about Emacs and how it threats graphical
displays by D. Colascione who I believe implemented, or helped to implement
double buffering in Emacs:

https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A10107017870677858%7D&path=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&refsrc=deprecated&_rdr