Re: Time to heat up the new module discussion
- From: Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>
- To: Steve Frécinaux <nudrema gmail com>
- Cc: Gnome Desktop Development List <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Time to heat up the new module discussion
- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:01:33 +0100
Steve Frécinaux wrote:
Iain * wrote:
As for .NET, even Microsoft themselves had to pull back from using it for core
functionality due to performance reasons - why do we think we will do any better?
As someone who is running mono based applications fairly regularly, I
haven't noticed any major performance issues. We're not talking here
about replacing the core libraries with c# based ones, we're talking
about applications, and for me the mono based apps are just as fast as
the C based ones.
I'm not really against having C# apps in the core (in fact I don't
really mind), what I'm more frightening about is having applications
that run all the time, using managed languages, and, as a consequence,
taking up a fairly large amount of memory, from the computer start to
the shutdown.
That's what I'm against including libraries, daemons or applets written
either in C#, or in python, while having small apps you close once
you're done (like alacarte) is fine.
ATM, required C#/python apps are far from required (well, I might be
wrong, after all apps do not really advertise what language they are
written with), but I guess we should have guidelines wrt that (and yeah,
I know deskbar is already in, and no I don't use it).
Think about it: having an application you run a short time do not really
impact on your available memory, so it's not a real issue on
"low-memory" system (like mine: 224 Megs are not much memory these
days), but long-running ones do.
+1 - you effectively summed up my view as well :)
I also think what one of the SUN chaps said about having layers in Gnome
makes more sense. Gnome to me is a pic 'n' mix system where everyone has
basically the same core all in C (the libraries, the daemons, panel,
file manager and nothing else) and everything else is optional.
Trying to define a "one size fits all" desktop using a myriad of
incompatible platforms and technologies somehow just doesn't feel right
(especially if you have a low end system or limited memory).
Just my thoughts...
--
Mr Jamie McCracken
http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]