Re: official support for more scripting languages in gnome needed

On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Ben Ford wrote:

> > > I think we are all getting somewhat off the subject.  The post that I originally
> > > replied to proposed making perl, python and lisp *REQUIREMENTS* for gnome.  To me
> > > (and at least one other), that is not an option and if you do so, you will lose
> > > me as a user / developer / distributor / advocate.
> >
> >  Yes, I was proposing to suggest programmers writing small utilities for gnome
> > to use scripting languages, that would be mean requiring user to install those
> > scripting languages for running these utilities.
> >
> >  Currently gnome is shipped with 4 major packages that require scripting
> > languages:
> > * sawfish - it requires rep (a dialect of lisp) - all logic is written in lisp
> > * gnucash - uses guile internally for all logic
> > * sketch (vector editor) written in python
> > * gimp - most of plugins are written in guile and some  in perl
> >
> >  Did you experienced any performance and memory issues with them that can be
> > attributed to the choice of language?
> >  I doubt very much..
> >
> I don't know.  I don't run those apps.  Actually, I take that back.  I tried sawfish
> and not only was it a total bitch to compile, but it was slower than hell. It actually
> took about two seconds for the window titlebar menu to pop down on a PII450 w/ 192
> RAM.  Totally unacceptable.

 As for sawfish - that delay was due to the way the *window menu* was coded
(elegance of code and generic approach rather than speed of execution). That 
delay happens only 1st time since sawfish startup when you pop up window menu
(and it's caused by the fact that not all modules were loaded yet (lazy
loading) - so 2 secons are needed to load all modules on which 'menu' module
depends).  On subsequent times, the menu pops up almost immediately.
 As for compiling - you didn't have to compile it yourself..

> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >  I think you didn't try software that was written in scripting languages (may
> > be you are deriving your attitude from running modperl or whatever for web).
> >  Using python-based floppy disk formatting tool that is *very* intelligent and
> > smart and bullet-proof won't hurt your resources at all.. That is what I was
> > proposing..
> >
> >  And also don't forget about Emacs and vi - both of them use scripting
> > languages to greatly extend functionality. Yes, they consume more resources
> > than notepad, but it's obvious which one is more advanced and feature-rich.
> >

 Also gimp vs paintbrush..
> I don't run those either.  Sorry =)
> Regardless of whether we agree on languages, you cannot impose this on me.  As I have
> said repeatedly, if you force me to run perl and python, when I don't wish to, I will
> go elsewhere.  I reserve the right to choose feature-rich vs. lean and fast.

 Yes, it's of course your right what to use.

> -b

 Best regards,

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