Re: Gnome 3.0 and implementation

[Benoit Caccinolo <bcaccinolo idealx com>]

The page is http://live.gnome.org/GnomeImplementation


On mar, 2005-03-01 at 13:56 +0100, Benoit Caccinolo wrote:
>Thanks for this good reply. I'm not the only one trying to understand
>the reason of the usage of C in Gnome,  so to stop future annoying
>mails, like mine :), I will open a page on live.gnome.org with a begin
>of explanation. The contribution experienced people in Gnome would be
>really great.
>
>
>On mar, 2005-03-01 at 12:22 +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
>>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?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>    Miro
>>
>>
>>
-- 
Benoit Caccinolo bcaccinolo idealx com