Re: official support for more scripting languages in gnome needed

Nathan Hurst wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Naba Kumar wrote:
> > Imagine writing a multithread FFT (fast fourier transformation) program
> > written in perl or lisp.
> Without wanting to escalate this discussion, I have seen a LISP compiler
> outperforming a hand optimised C program for doing FFT.  LISP is actually
> easier to generate optimised code from than C due to several subtle flaws
> in the C language wrt optimisation.
> njh

Andreas L. Gustafsson wrote:

> FFT works very well in Lisp, if you choose a lisp that is designed for
> speed and use the compiler. CMUCL works fine.

Then where's the question of "scripting language"?


James Henstridge wrote:

> > What this whole discussion was over is whether or not to make perl, python, lisp
> > and <insert favorite scripting language here> requirements for gnome.  My answer
> > is no.  HELL NO.
> I don't think the idea was to add artificial dependencies (that would be
> stupid).  However, I don't see the problem with programs written in
> interpreted languages.  If you don't want to install the language's
> runtime, then you are free not to use programs written in that language
> (or even rewrite them if you want)
> James.

I fully agree with Ben.  These languages can remain as the 'side-supporters'
Gnome, while keeping C as the base for Gnome.



Life is a game of bridge -- and you've just been finessed.

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