Re: Gnome 3.0 and implementation

bcaccinolo idealx com wrote:

For a good implementation of this concept could it be possible to use a
real object language?
This topic has been rehashed in the past. Surprisingly enough, it just keeps coming up again.

I really don't want ot troll but I think this could be really
interesting to use such a langage. Like Seth has said in his article on
gnome journal,  there is activity in pygtk and gtk# communities and IMHO
it is due to the use of a real object language.

If gtk were written in a 'real object language' (pick any one you like), there would be no pygtk or gtk# - you'd only have one of them. The main disadvantage of 'real object languages' is their stubborn refusal to properly talk to each other. .NET is no improvement to this - it's still just one VM, and there are others. VMs also refuse to properly talk to each other (marshalling calls and shunting to IPC does not qualify as 'properly', and neither does C++ style of wrapping everything into extern "C" stubs).

IMHO (and I'm no bigname GNOME developer, so a large grain of salt is advised :) ), C is just right for the low-level of GNOME. That said, GOB makes writing gobjects really, *really* nice. More extensive use of GOB could be something to look at?


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