Re: Plans for 2.8 - GNOME Managed Language Services?

On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 16:33, Ian McKellar wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 15:11, Shahms King wrote:
> > Yes, having the GNOME core implemented in multiple languages is just
> > begging for the Sawfish problem all over again...  With GNOME 2.0 right
> > around the corner Sawfish had yet to be ported from Gtk+ 1.2 because it
> > was largely written in Scheme and the gtk+ bindings hadn't been ported
> > yet. 
> Its quite different. rep was invented by jsh and is unused outside of
> sawfish and jade (the editor John wrote - that only he uses). Python is
> widely used, widely known, widely supported.
> Ian

Yes, I love and use both Python and the GNOME Python bindings on a daily
basis and would love to see them both become "Platform Languages" as it
were, but my point still stands.  Keeping the number of GNOME Official
Platform Languages (tm) helps ensure continued maintainability of that
platform should any particular developer stop his work on it.  I agree
that something is needed, I don't see any particular reason to stop
using C/C++ as the statically typed language of choice for the immediate
future, but having a popular dynamically typed (and garbage collected)
language as part of the core platform should definitely be considered.

In terms of the Java/C# debate, the way things stand now with ikvm and
mono, any components written for the JVM can be used by the CLR crowd
with relative ease while the opposite may not be the case.  This leads
to an interesting problem, given the popularity of the JVM and ikvm's
ability to translate it for the CLR, it's logical that the JVM and Java
should probably be adopted.  However, the one-way flow of effort implies
a wider variety of options appearing on the CLR side (Dashboard, for

If someone were to write a CLR -> JVM translator the point largely
becomes moot (except as relates to the "Maintainer Problem").  Whether
to ship JVM or CLR binaries is then up to the distribution.  Sun and IBM
can ship the JVM compiled binaries, Novell the CLR.  Admittedly, both
cases depend on the completeness of the underlying Java/.NET


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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