Re: Gnome 3.0 and implementation

[Benoit Caccinolo <bcaccinolo idealx com>]

Thanks for this good reply. I'm not the only one trying to understand
the reason of the usage of C in Gnome,  so to stop future annoying
mails, like mine :), I will open a page on live.gnome.org with a begin
of explanation. The contribution experienced people in Gnome would be
really great.


On mar, 2005-03-01 at 12:22 +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
>bcaccinolo idealx com wrote:
>
>>For a good implementation of this concept could it be possible to use a
>>real object language?
>>  
>>
>This topic has been rehashed in the past. Surprisingly enough, it just 
>keeps coming up again.
>
>>I really don't want ot troll but I think this could be really
>>interesting to use such a langage. Like Seth has said in his article on
>>gnome journal,  there is activity in pygtk and gtk# communities and IMHO
>>it is due to the use of a real object language.
>>
>>  
>>
>If gtk were written in a 'real object language' (pick any one you like), 
>there would be no pygtk or gtk# - you'd only have one of them. The main 
>disadvantage of 'real object languages' is their stubborn refusal to 
>properly talk to each other. .NET is no improvement to this - it's still 
>just one VM, and there are others. VMs also refuse to properly talk to 
>each other (marshalling calls and shunting to IPC does not qualify as 
>'properly', and neither does C++ style of wrapping everything into 
>extern "C" stubs).
>
>IMHO (and I'm no bigname GNOME developer, so a large grain of salt is 
>advised :) ), C is just right for the low-level of GNOME. That said, GOB 
>makes writing gobjects really, *really* nice. More extensive use of GOB 
>could be something to look at?




>
>    Miro
>
>
>
-- 
Benoit Caccinolo bcaccinolo idealx com