Re: Scripting in Gnome

> Perl and python are both highly optimized, small and fast cores.  A
> custom language would not be and would have far less functionality. 
> Most everything in Perl and Python are implemented as libraries which do
> not need to be loaded if they are not used.
Minimal functionality is needed for a simple script engine. IE u dont
need OO or types (all types are variant in VBA/javascript) or tons of
built in functionality. IMO python and perl r overkill in that respect.

> That is the chicken before the egg problem.  Rarely are things just
> accepted into the Gnome core.  They have to prove their worth first. 
> Personaly I think Gnome is taking the right path with the language
> binding releases.  Plus technology's like DBUS will make it simpler to
> communicated with non-bound object.  What you might be happy with is the
> Mono project which may become part of the Gnome core at some point but
> it has a lot of hurdles before that happens.  Basically with Mono only
> one set of bindings need to be produced and any language that can target
> .Net can use them.  This includes VB if you are so inclined.    

Mono will never become an *official* part of Gnome due to politics (SUN
would go ape sh1t if it happened). Also the VB in mono and .Net is
radically different to VB and is thus completely incompatible. The
scripting I am proposing is at the same level as VBA - it is not a full
blown language for developing big apps. Its designed for glue,
automation and building small apps. 

> And maintainability suffers because of it.  Code in HTML just sucks
> IMHO.  Code should reside separately with the XML only being a
> template.  Model/View rocks.
You can do that anyhow in XML using include files - one for
interface/one for code

> >  A simple generic scripting interface
> > with syntax defined by XML is a quick and easy way to getting integrated
> > scripting into Gnome with the least overhead. The only objects that the
> > scriptiong language should use are bonobo and/or glade.
> So your talking about the same thing that orbit does except that ORBit
> uses IDL's instead of an XML interface.  As I said scriptability really
> falls on the applications to construct interfaces on which one can call
> on.  I think DBUS will really be the unifying force here across desktops
> and on through all the lower layers.  No need for yet another arbitrary
> language. 

No the XML will make use of Bonobo/Orbit not replace it. Again Im
talking about mini scripts here - its nothing that competes with Perl or
Python. All it is is a generic script engine which enables scripts to be
used in any language whoose syntax is defined using an xml definition. 

VBA is needed anyhow for things like Gnumeric if they want to achieve
compatibility with Excel

> --
> J5

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]