RE: GSoc Weekly Report (Browser Extension Rewrite)

Hey, a quick note on the subject, I made a haphazard attempt at this rewrite 
some time ago, and faced the same issue you have now. I think the deciding 
factor would be your personal experience with the languages. If you have never 
really worked with C, but have used python, I would think that a well designed 
and well written python plugin is much better than a haphazard 'My First C' 
program. The second concern/thought is that a lot of users will leave their 
browsers open for hours (if not days) at a time, I'm not 100% sure if this 
applies in the plugin context, but a GC system probably offers some safety net 
for memory use.

Just a quick $0.02,
Kevin Kubasik

-----Original Message-----
From: dashboard-hackers-bounces gnome org 
[mailto:dashboard-hackers-bounces gnome org] On Behalf Of Joe Shaw
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:49 AM
To: Tao Fei
Cc: dashboard-hackers gnome org
Subject: Re: GSoc Weekly Report (Browser Extension Rewrite)


On 7/14/07, Tao Fei <filia tao gmail com> wrote:
> I've noticed that Epiphany can be written in C or in Python. The old
> extension is written in C. I'm wondering whether it is acceptable if I
> write the extension in python ?

It's a possibility, although I'm not crazy about adding a Python
dependency to Beagle (not libbeagle, which already has an optional
Python dep for the bindings).  It's probably not unreasonable to
assume that anyone with Epiphany installed will also have Python,

Dashboard-hackers mailing list
Dashboard-hackers gnome org

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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