We had a similar experience to this at work. We wrote a google cloud service that interfaced with firestore using F# and found it painful because the firestore library is meant to be used with C#. It worked decently well but it was hard to write idiomatic F# without having a bunch of wrapping functions.
We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
21–30 of 228 posts
Re: We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, seems like a lot of unnecessary girating just to implement something that would've been much simpler + cross-platform with a custom UI toolkit and something like opengl. Tabs are like UI 101
Luckily the UI and the core (libghostty) are separate so you can girate out your own UI 101 version without GTK if you'd like.
And someone already did: https://github.com/gabydd/wraith (Wayland-only frontend, extremely lightweight). Super cool.
Re: We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
#23I'm curious if Rust would have prevented the memory correctness errors assuming it replaced Zig in this scenario. It sounds like the vast majority were due to Zig/C interactions which makes me believe Rust would have had the same issues, but as a Go developer I am only guessing. I'm curious if there is a language that provides more tools to ensure correctness even when you're interacting with a huge amount of C.
Hi @schmichael ;) Rust would've prevented one. The rest Rust wouldn't have prevented since as you already noticed, it was in the boundary layer and semantics of a C API. It would've only been as safe as the Rust wrapper. One argument is that the richer, more proven ecosystem of wrapper libraries may have prevented it versus my DIY wrappers. The one Rust would've prevented was a simple undefined memory access: https:/…
Rust has safe and reliable GTK bindings. They used gir to auto-generate the error-prone parts of the FFI based on schemas and introspection: https://gtk-rs.org/gir/book/
Rust's bindings fully embrace GTK's refcounting, so there's no mismatch in memory management.
Re: We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
#24Very nice writeup! I was actually just wondering what was going on with Ghostty, I've been daily driving it since initial release but I haven't noticed any updates since then (not that anything is particularly lacking, it's a great terminal!) Good to hear the Mitchell and the team are still hacking away at it! Thanks for the great software!
Hold onto your butts cause 1.2 is weeks away and the release notes if printed would cause a [larger than we already have] deforestation problem.
Re: We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
#25I'm curious if Rust would have prevented the memory correctness errors assuming it replaced Zig in this scenario. It sounds like the vast majority were due to Zig/C interactions which makes me believe Rust would have had the same issues, but as a Go developer I am only guessing. I'm curious if there is a language that provides more tools to ensure correctness even when you're interacting with a huge amount of C.
[deleted]
Re: We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi @schmichael ;) Rust would've prevented one. The rest Rust wouldn't have prevented since as you already noticed, it was in the boundary layer and semantics of a C API. It would've only been as safe as the Rust wrapper. One argument is that the richer, more proven ecosystem of wrapper libraries may have prevented it versus my DIY wrappers. The one Rust would've prevented was a simple undefined memory access: https:/…
Rust has safe and reliable GTK bindings. They used gir to auto-generate the error-prone parts of the FFI based on schemas and introspection: https://gtk-rs.org/gir/book/ Rust's bindings fully embrace GTK's refcounting, so there's no mismatch in memory management.
Do you mean gtk-rs (https://gtk-rs.org/)? I have done a bit of programming with it. I respect the work behind it, but it is a monumental PITA - truly a mismatch of philosophies and design - and I would a thousand times rather deal with C/C++ correctness demons than attempt it again, unless I had hard requirements for soundness. Even then, if you use gtk-rs you are pulling in 100+ crate dependencies and who knows what lurks in those?
Re: We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
#27I managed to write a fairly large GTK application without the GTK type system encroaching on my code at all. It just meant hooking a bunch of lambdas in where they want you to be inheriting from and extending their own classes to allow all the parts to communicate together.
In the end it wasn't that messy, but probably confusing for anyone used to writing dogmatic GTK applications.
Re: We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi @schmichael ;) Rust would've prevented one. The rest Rust wouldn't have prevented since as you already noticed, it was in the boundary layer and semantics of a C API. It would've only been as safe as the Rust wrapper. One argument is that the richer, more proven ecosystem of wrapper libraries may have prevented it versus my DIY wrappers. The one Rust would've prevented was a simple undefined memory access: https:/…
Rust has safe and reliable GTK bindings. They used gir to auto-generate the error-prone parts of the FFI based on schemas and introspection: https://gtk-rs.org/gir/book/ Rust's bindings fully embrace GTK's refcounting, so there's no mismatch in memory management.
We also use gir to auto-generate our bindings. But stuff like this is not represented in gir: https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/commit/7548dcfe634cd9... It could EASILY be represented in a wrapper (e.g. with a Drop trait) but that implies a well-written wrapper, which is my argument. It's not inherent in the safety Rust gives you.
EDIT:
I looked it up because I was curious, and a Drop trait is exactly what they do: https://github.com/gtk-rs/gtk-rs-core/blob/b7559d3026ce06838... and as far as I can tell this is manually written, not automatically generated from gir.
So the safety does rely on the human, not the machine.
Re: We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
#29> Whatever your feelings are about OOP and memory management, the reality is that if you choose GTK, you're forced into interfacing in some way with the GObject type system. You can't avoid it. In the past this has also been my assessment of GTK. It lead me to decide to take the other path, to never directly use GTK. I appreciate the value in having a unified user interface between applications, but I have always tho…
> That lead me to think that GTK and the GObject system is opinionated in a way that are not terribly compatible with my own opinions. This might be amusing for me to say but... I also feel this way. I disagree a lot with the Gnome ecosystem's point of view. Funny! Using GTK for Linux was a pragmatic choice. A goal of Ghostty is to be "platform-native" (defined here because there's no such thing on Linux: https://gho…
I like Linux because it gives me the freedom to make my system behave how I want. The GNOME devs seem to think that GNOME should only behave how they want. For example, last time I checked, GNOME required a third-party plugin just to move the clock from the center of the status bar to the side.
I'm not at all surprised to see that this mindset extends to GTK.
Re: We rewrote the Ghostty GTK application
#30I don't get the hype around this application. The only UI Ghostty has is tabs and the context menu, is it really worth the integration pain and now this rewrite? Maybe they're planning for more, like those GUI configuration dialogs that iterm2 has? Kitty uses OpenGL for everything and draws its own tabs, they're fully customizable and can be made to look however you want. By not wasting time on integrating with massi…
> The only UI Ghostty has is tabs and the context menu - Tabs - Splits - "this process has exited" banner - Close confirmation dialogs - Change title dialog - Unsafe paste detection dialogs - Context menus - Animated bells (opt in) - "Quake-style" dropdown terminals (cross platform but different mechanisms) - Progress bars (ConEmu OSC 9;4) - macOS: Apple Shortcuts Integration - macOS: Spotlight Integration Probably m…
I know I'm about to show my ignorance regarding GUI programming here, but: would SDL2 be a suitable choice? Or would that be too low-level? Or just...the wrong sort of library?