Re: official support for more scripting languages in gnome needed

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Naba Kumar wrote:

> 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.

> 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"?

I have not much of an opinion on scripting languages, I'm just to much of
a Lisp lover to keep my big mouth shut when someone says something about
Lisp I know not to be true. I should keep my big mouth shut! :)

But as for the scripting languages, I do think GNOME is better off without
depending on them.

GNOME is already quite tough to build and install with the dependencies
that exists.

But do write more code, in whatever language suits your fancy. I like
Lisps. Now I *will* shutup!


================== I'm powered by Emacs! ======================
          ** the choice of a GNU generation **
SF-fan and tea drinker. Beware!       e-mail: ante update uu se
=========== Make a choice, protect your Freedom! ==============

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