Yeah. It really does take more effort to leave perfectly working functionality in place than to do the work to remove it.
Come on. Many of the decisions made by the GTK+ developers are utterly unjustifiable.
Take the removal of GtkHBox and GtkVBox in place of GtkBox. A couple of shims for backward compatibility would have taken just a few lines of code and would have avoided a hard compatibility break. Did that happen? No. So a huge burden to update every GTK+ application (incompatibly!) was imposed upon every developer on the planet. Was that a productive use of resources? No. It was an utterly illogical change which had zero real-world benefit to anyone. And that's just one of many, many bad decisions.
There are very valid complaints to be made about GTK+, and you can't handwave them all away with some PR comments.
Come on. Many of the decisions made by the GTK+ developers are utterly unjustifiable.
Take the removal of GtkHBox and GtkVBox in place of GtkBox. A couple of shims for backward compatibility would have taken just a few lines of code and would have avoided a hard compatibility break. Did that happen? No. So a huge burden to update every GTK+ application (incompatibly!) was imposed upon every developer on the planet. Was that a productive use of resources? No. It was an utterly illogical change which had zero real-world benefit to anyone. And that's just one of many, many bad decisions.
There are very valid complaints to be made about GTK+, and you can't handwave them all away with some PR comments.