Re: Time to heat up the new module discussion

[Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alvaro 0x50 org>]

Miguel de Icaza wrote:

>> How many Desktop Java based applications has you used in the last
>> few years? Ok, and now, think again in all those benefits that Mono
>> is supposed to bring to us.
>
> Azureus and Eclipse come to mind.

  Two out of.. how many? Maybe there is a reason for that low
  percentage.

> I personally use these Mono apps: last-exit, banshee, beagle,
> f-spot, gfax, gimp# (it runs PhotoShop plugins) and tomboy.
>
> (And a couple more of Novell ones, but I doubt you care about those)

  Yeah, well.. I couldn't expect less. That is the same as if you ask
  me how many Cherokee plug-ins I use. :-)

  Anyway, I'm not discussing about the number of cool applications. I
  know that there are a few of them. The point here is if to accept
  Mono as a dependency would something good for GNOME, besides those
  applications.

  It wouldn't make sense to accept such a big dependency just to be
  able to include some of those applications. That would be a really
  short team goal, and may turn in to a problem in the medium term.

>>   Think of another desktop, choose the one you want.. let's say KDE:
>>   it's one framework, one desktop and innovative applications.  So,
>>   yeah, rather than something strange, it's the usual business for
>>   everybody else.
>
> The KDE guys have no problems including Mono bindings (or Ruby, or
> Java, or JavaScript, or Python ones or Perl ones):

  Of course they do, although that is far faaaar away from using them.
  Actually, they have their own binding generator, it's really cheap
  for them.

  What I meant is that if you launch a KDE desktop, it'll use a single
  framework and execution environment. Even if they have binding, all
  the main desktop application have been written using a single
  development framework.

>>   The Mono case is exactly the same as the Python or the Java one;
>>   and from my point of view all them carry the same set of problems
>>   to GNOME: Huge dependencies, resource wasting, and the bast
>>   amount of APIs in which the applications will be based and that
>>   are controlled by somebody else (API may change, ABI may be
>>   broken, etc).
>>
>>   By the way, I have no idea.. I'm just wondering.. Isn't the Mono
>>   Class libraries bigger than the GNOME ones.  Wouldn't it look
>>   weird to depend on a secondary framework bigger than itself?
>
> The Linux Kernel and libc are also larger than Mono. That a weird
> dependency.

  We aren't discussing about making GNOME depend on the Linux kernel.

  For me, the weird thing would be to make the GNOME framework depend
  on another framework that is probably bigger than itself.

-- 
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com