Re: official support for more scripting languages in gnome needed

> > 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..

No, this was 2 seconds *each* time. (3 seconds the first time.)  As for compiling, as you
can guess, I like to have control over my own box.  However, the particular installation of
Sawfish I was referring to was actually the second time I tried it.  This time on a stock
RH box with pre-compiled RPMs.  And hey, *somebody* has to compile these things!  You don't
have to make their life harder!

> > > <snip>
> >
> > 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.

Thank you.  But that's not what you originally said, and that is what I was replying to.
Not to the issue of encouraging scripting laguages, but to the fact that you stated that
you wanted to make it a requirement.


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