If you want to go with C++ then you would probably save a lot of time and effort by using Qt. But then you might just as well join the KDE-Love mailing list ;-). I have my issues with Qt though, especially when it comes to video for desktop applications. I would prefer a higher level language more along the lines of Java or C# in terms of syntax. Performance is important of course if you are going to make it the default framework for GNOME development. That is what I like about Vala. I get the performance of C with all of the niceties of a higher level language.
Brian--On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Michele De Pascalis <glaedr il drago gmail com> wrote:
I would use C++ if we care about performance (and I'd care), Objective C if we don't.
Inviato da iPhoneHmm. When was the last time you tried it? I have not been using it for a long time but I have managed to do quite a lot with Vala/Clutter and so far it has been pretty stable. I just wish it had better debug integration. Still, I am far from a complete application so things may crop up. For now, I am liking the ease and flexibility of it. What language would you recommend for a *standard* programming environment with GNOME, other than C?
2012/3/1 Michele De Pascalis <glaedr il drago gmail com>Vala compiles in C/GLib, that actually provides an object sistem written in C, using C structs to provide it, with reflection and all. Using structs to provide OOP is less performant than using native OOP classes: GLib is compiled in structs that are compiled in assembly, while native OOP classes are compiled in assembly without any implementation between. Briefly, GLib results in a system of structs to represent a system of structs, while native OOP implementations are just systems of structs. There is the difference of an implementation layer, that is overhead. It's quite similar to every runtime object system, like those in Objective C, Java, Python, ecc.Plus, compiling from C means low-level exceptions, while compiling from a native OOP language means high-level exceptions.However, I'm not so good at explaining such complicated concepts in English...hope you get it anyway.
2012/2/29 Arief M Utama <arief utama gmail com>Err... I don't really understands this.
On 2/29/2012 8:05 PM, Michele De Pascalis wrote:Vala is translated in C/GLib before it's built, that means so many data structures in assembly, that means overhead. And, Vala was quite unstable the latest time I tried it, throwing meaningless low level exceptions (a good inheritance from C).
What are you saying actually? There should be no overhead in running time. Maybe slight overhead only at compilation time. Which don't mean much if it means increase in productivity and less programmer time used.
Or, I misunderstood your point? Care to elaborate?
All the best.
-arief
2012/2/27 Brian Duffy <brduffy gmail com>
Personally, after quite a while deciding what language to use for my project, I went with Vala. I just did not want to deal with writing my application in C. If Vala could gain an excellent IDE with a proper visual debugger that isolated you from the underlying C code then I think that would make for a nice development environment. Problem is, I don't see the community getting this done with Vala. I'm just happy that they have done what they have! It's amazing really. However, you can't escape the fact that many of these contributions are made by people with other, more pressing responsibilities. The most successful ones are often sponsored by a larger company, but there contributions are sometimes limited to that company's needs.
My biggest hope is for a company like Canonical to spend a good deal of time and money and develop a kick ass Vala IDE/Debugger and API even if they have to charge for it.
--
2012/2/27 Konstantin Evdokimenko <qewerty gmail com>
Cocoa is not a single framework it has a lot of them, I think even more than gtk+ and gnome have together. MS also has many technologies, frameworks and solutions. So I'm thinking nothing is that bad with gnome, but
maybe a good ide is needed
27.02.2012 23:31 пользователь "Darton Williams" <dartonw gmail com> написал:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Michele Alex D. De Pascalis <glaedr il drago gmail com> wrote:
>>
>> Just look around: Apple and Microsofts have their own SDKs, APIs and IDEs perfectly working with them. Compared to these, developing for GNOME is way too hard and complicated. Maybe we have the fastest software, but we have to write with Gtk, which is just a toolkit, without anything else really integrating it. And C is over, so autogenerating a wrapper isn't a good solution (talking about gtkmm). If a newbie gets in touch with Cocoa and Xcode, he gets templates, he gets wide documentation, he connects events with handlers by a drag'n'drop, cutting on the IDE's editor.
>> But it's not just about the IDE itself, it's also about paradigms: Apple chose Model View Controller and Delegation, and everything is written around these, and it takes seconds to add a View to your application.
>> I'm saying this because I've been learning Cocoa for eight months, and I had learnt C++ before. Even now I know C++ is better in many ways, but trying back Gtk made me understand it's not about the language, now. Those who write iOS or Mac apps know what I mean with all this.
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnome-love mailing list
>> gnome-love gnome org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
>
>
> I fully agree with this statement - that GNOME desperately needs a unified API/SDK. It would accelerate adoption of GNOME simply because application development would become less of an arcane art. As a developer, I feel that I could contribute to that effort.
>
> So how do we get started? :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-love mailing list
> gnome-love gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
>
_______________________________________________
gnome-love mailing list
gnome-love gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
Duff
_______________________________________________
gnome-love mailing list
gnome-love gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
_______________________________________________ gnome-love mailing list gnome-love gnome org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
_______________________________________________
gnome-love mailing list
gnome-love gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
_______________________________________________
gnome-love mailing list
gnome-love gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
--
Duff
Duff