On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 11:50:44 UTC, Mike Wey wrote:
> The GTK 4 version still needs work and isn't released yet.
> I currently don't have the time to work on it, but i hope i am able to resume working on it later this year.

Just FYI, don't hurry back to it on my account. :)

The only explanation I can find for thinking it was out is that I must have seen (must have saw?) a gtk4 download link and misread it.

On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 11:50:44 UTC, Mike Wey wrote:
> On 03-09-2021 20:42, M.M. wrote:
>> I just recently visited your blog, and was wandering whether it's over now... I also visited gtkd website, and was wandering whether it's over now (the website still shows a wrapper for GTK 3.24).
>> 
>> Happy to see you are back and well. I wonder where did you learn about a new gtkD release? Anyway, on the long run, I guess covering GTK 4 will be very welcome.
>
> The GTK 4 version still needs work and isn't released yet.
> I currently don't have the time to work on it, but i hope i am able to resume working on it later this year.

Glad to hear you still have some work for gtkd on mind. (I recall your announcement along the lines of seeking someone to step-in for the help with gtkd.) Given the success of gtkd, it would be a pity if gtk4 did not get into it. Good luck finding time (and joy) to work on it. I appreciate the work.

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 18:52:13 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
> (i loathe and despise wayland but ill try not to rant)

Have you written more about this on your blog? I have read more than one piece that wishes good riddance of X in favour of Wayland, I'd like to read something about the "but" side.

On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 12:29:14PM +0000, Dukc via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 18:52:13 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
> > (i loathe and despise wayland but ill try not to rant)
> 
> Have you written more about this on your blog? I have read more than one piece that wishes good riddance of X in favour of Wayland, I'd like to read something about the "but" side.

I for one will *not* be happy about X being dropped in favor of Wayland,
esp. since the latter is not (yet?) at feature parity (or better) with
X.


T

-- 
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.

On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 12:29:14 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 18:52:13 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
>> (i loathe and despise wayland but ill try not to rant)
>
> Have you written more about this on your blog?

I have not (well.... not directly anyway, wayland flamewars is one of the things that directly inspired this post: http://dpldocs.info/this-week-in-d/Blog.Posted_2021_03_08.html#adam's-rant ).

The short version is the wayland devs were hyperfocused on one use case and missed the big picture. This led them to wrongly believe that the majority of X is completely useless legacy bloat, so instead of patching up the one use case, they threw it all out.

...then they have spent 13 years slowly reinventing it doing extension after extension and revision after revision after revision, and still haven't actually even reliably fixed the one issue they complained about... while X actually did patch it up if you opt into it (via the dri2 and sync extensions) and it does a pretty good job. They also bring up spurious security complaints - which have been around since the 90's btw but never materialized into a real problem - which are also patched via X extensions or nested servers. It could certainly be better but a version 1.1 or 2.0 of the security extension could realistically fix that up, no need to throw everything out. (Notice how Microsoft made similar changes in Windows without a significant breakage of backward and interoperation compatibility.)

So they broke everything for no benefit. Again. It is just like the broken audio stuff.

And then it really annoys me that the wayland proponents are rarely well educated on X, saying things that are just untrue. So that ups the flamewars to 11.