Re: Time to heat up the new module discussion

[Andrew Cowie <andrew operationaldynamics com>]

On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 11:57 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote: 
> IMO we should allow modules to depend on any of the official bindings.

Since I want to see GNOME opened to new audiences and new contributors,
I'm broadly in favour of the inclusive view which encourages innovation
across the board.

However,

On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 09:58 +0100, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
>   The platform and default desktop have to be clean of those secondary
>   frameworks, 

I am sympathetic to this concern since I've been involved in packaging
GNOME and know how much of a nightmare that is. I'm also worried about
performance and bloat issues.

But for the Mono guys, I buy the argument that their performance will
improve over time.

As for Java (which obviously I am quite partisan about), the same
applies. Also, we've got the amazing compile-to-native thing that GCJ
provides (with GTK apps dropping dramatically in resident size).

And I also agree with the point that overall that more usage by more
applications will lead to more focus and attention being paid to
performance tuning.

> and then, it will be up to each distribution to add
>   whatever they want: Java, Python, Mono, etc..

Which, to be honest, I feel makes this whole discussion a bit pointless.

I realize that GNOME release engineering is holy ground, but don't you
see? Everyone already ships Beagle. Which means they ship Mono. Which
means it's a part of the GNOME desktop. fait accompli.

AfC
London

-- 
Andrew Frederick Cowie
Operational Dynamics

Website: http://www.operationaldynamics.com/
Blog: http://research.operationaldynamics.com/blogs/andrew/
GPG key: 0945 9282 449C 0058 1FF5  2852 2D51 130C 57F6 E7BD

Sydney    +61 2 9977 6866
New York  +1 646 472 5054
Toronto   +1 416 848 6072
London    +44 207 1019201