Re: 3.2: gjs/seed

Le mercredi 20 avril 2011 à 19:12 -0400, Colin Walters a écrit : 
> On the other side of the coin though, I think we largely failed to
> make JavaScript a compelling way to write apps.  The language is only
> a part of the question, and it's really not a large one.  We need to
> focus more on a build/deploy story, and less on /usr/bin/gjs.  By
> "build" I mean we really shouldn't be leaving it up to app authors to
> figure out how to use Automake with gjs/seed and to do
> "".  Deploy is another story.

If you are putting this on the table, it might not be too late to
rethink the way modules are imported in JS applications (and this holds
for Python applications, too).

When you use "", you don’t even know whether you’ll be
getting GTK+ 2.x or GTK+ 3.x. This is horribly wrong. Just as wrong as
most modules in Python, the lack of versioning leads to horrible
breakage at runtime when there are API mismatchs. This is a ball and
chain we’ve been pulling since the pygtk 1.x vs. pygtk 2.x times, and it
is still here with GI.

There should be a way to specify the API version required when you
import the module, and it should even be mandatory. 

 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'  “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
  `-    […] I will see what I can do for you.”  -- Jörg Schilling

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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