Re: Focusing on innovation re: mono, python et al

[JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>]

On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:30 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On 7/17/06, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Which makes me wonder why we are able to bless some applications and
> >> > not others. The point of blessing the application is saying that this
> >> > application meets the gnome standards for X,Y and Z and has a release
> >> > shedule that coincides with the gnome platform release.
> >>
> >> And that people will work on it to bug-triage it, bug fix it, translate
> >> it, document it, UI review it, integrate it, and present it, which is
> >> what
> >> that release schedule makes possible.
> >
> > And so why does what language it is written in matter to this blessing
> > at all then?
> 
> - Multiple languages make the work harder by requiring people to know more
> languages

Only for bug fixing part, the language for development has no bearings
on triage, translation, ui review, documentation, etc.

> - Because not everyone will be adept in all languages, multiple languages 
> make it more difficult for people to work together.

By this logic we should only allow one language - C.  This is obviously
outweighed by the benefits of working in a higher level language though.

> - Doing all this work on a language that might later have to be ripped out
> would be unpleasant. Blessing leads to integration, which makes this more
> significant.

Why would any of the languages need to be ripped out (I guess the usual
"patents" argument will get inserted here, but by that token we may have
to rip out samba support in nautilus at any moment or parts of cairo due
to some obscure graphics patent)?

-JP
-- 
JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>
Novell, Inc.