catgets (Was: Re: xfprint conflict)

Benedikt Meurer Benedikt.Meurer at
Fri Mar 28 14:48:24 CET 2003

On Thu, 27, Mar 2003, Jasper Huijsmans wrote:

> > BTW: A different issue: I'd really like to see xfce using catgets
> > instead of gettext for two reasons: a) catgets is POSIX standard
> > (gettext is simply a SunOS/Solaris thang) 
> I don't see how that is an argument at all, really.

This is what makes me sad of opensource, no sence for standardisation at
all. It might not be the main argument, but it is an argument in any case.

> > and b) the gettext backend
> > is slow and ugly (and you can easily run into problems with that)
> > whereas catgets has a simply and fast backend. Just to mention:
> > catgets is still not an optimal solution, but its a better solution
> > than gettext (especially GNU gettext) from my point of view.
> I don't believe the speed difference, which seems to me the only
> valid reason you mention, will be noticeable at all.

Depends on the system and the size of the translation table.

> Also, it would require a big rewrite of translations, string
> marking code, etc., right? Not to mention it would require me and
> possibly others to learn a new way of handling translations. 

Of course.

> The catgets interface seems to require the programmer to manually keep
> track of mesage ID's; that sounds like a lot of needless work.

Thats maybe one of the disadvantages I mentioned above.

> And we'd be using gettext anyway, indirectly through gtk+. Changing all
> this sounds like _much_ more trouble than it's worth to me. 

Thats one reason for me to dislike gtk+ :-)

But I got the point, we'll stay with gettext.


Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
    -- Henry Spencer

More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list