https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...nt-4175687061/
https://9to5linux.com/gtk-4-0-offici...of-development

My first thought is what fresh(hot place) will this bring. Also are we going to have to maintain gtk2-3-4 now? We still have lots of gtk2 stuff. And lots of software probably won't be changed over to gtk4. Plus a whole different theme-engine set to keep up with. So anything associated with gnome will move to this no doubt.
Why would I want this in a toolkit?

Any thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that it's in the nature of everybody (Hardware or software) to prefer laying out grand new plans and starting fresh stuff with lofty goals. It's certainly better than finding the worst aspects of your code or schematic - the stuff you swept under the carpet - and improving that.

I expect that the adoption of GTK 4 will be very slow outside of GNOME.

The reason is that GTK 4 removed a lot of functionality that the GTK 4 developers consider "legacy". This creates a great deal of work for application developers to rewrite their code mainly for the sake of a new API. There is absolutely nothing wrong with conventional GUIs.

I don't see GTK 4 as a replacement for GTK 3. GTK 4 is more of a GNOME-specific toolkit. The two are going to co-exist for years into the future.
Ed

I liked the GTK 4.0 version from 2012 better. So minimalistic.

1 members found this post helpful.

Haha, nice one. Not to salt the wounds, but it reminds me how good it is to be using KDE.

I don't understand the taste for KDE2.x was very big & heavy, imho, but workable 3.x, 4.x & 5.x have all gotten worse. I somehow ended up with a live usb using kde plasma-5.0, and had to redo it immediately because it was unworkable.

It was always quite predictable, and it was always configurable to your own taste, and that also almost always included "legacy options". KDE is what you make it, if you want you can have an empty desktop with only a command line prompt, or you can have a desktop full of stuff, it's up to you.

I'm still using the KDE3 start menu for example.

Unlike Gnome, there is no "take it or leave it" approach. For those that use a desktop, I think KDE is very much in line with the freedom philosophy, reflected in a desktop environment. And in regards to features and workflows and ways of going things efficiently, KDE is the uncontested desktop environment regardless of operating system. It's basically the best desktop system available. Sure, there have been some historical issues, but not like Gnome.

And don't think I don't like Gnome, I like Gnome, just not personally. I don't mind Gnome 3 either, but it should rather have been offered with legacy options and compatibility in my opinion, and choices. But choices is not what Gnome is about.. If I was to use Gnome, I would probably prefer the 2.x family of Gnome as well, for a production/use system. All the more I really enjoy the posting on distrowatch about Gnome 4.0, it's kind of hilarious and something a "veteran user" can appreciate.

We're confusing GNOME and GTK now (my fault I guess for posting that article), which are entwined but not one and the same.
So, coming back to GTK: KDE otoh needs to follow Qt releases. Technically that's probably better than GTK but the licensing is becoming increasingly weird.