Re: A change in direction for Epiphany?

[Britt Selvitelle <anotherbritt gmail com>]

Hey Adam,

On 6/24/05, Adam Hooper <adamh densi com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-24-06 at 16:05 -0400, Britt Selvitelle wrote:
> > One thing I'd like to see in epiphany is javascript bindings. It just
> > makes sense to be able to develop for the browser in the same language
> > you use to develop for the web.
> 
> I disagree: a GNOME application is not a web page. My view is that
> Firefox uses Javascript for extensions because Netscape decided 7 years
> ago to blur the boundaries between web browsers and web pages -- a
> decision it later reversed, bringing about Firefox.
> 
> The main advantage of Javascript bindings is that web developers can
> become extension writers (making extensions like "web developer toolbar"
> totally obvious).

Right, but this is a huge advantage in my opinion. It brings in the
large base of web developers and allows them to easily extend their
browser with a language they are most likely very familiar with.

And there's no reason Epiphany can't support both.

> The main advantage of Python bindings is that they're easy. Javascript
> isn't particularly easy to learn, and making a Firefox extension isn't
> trivial either (the chrome and XUL files and stuff...). On the other
> hand, Python is easy to learn, and making an Epiphany extension is
> trivial (with 10 lines of code and an XML file you can make a useful
> extension).

Glade is no easier than XUL for someone who doesn't already know it.
But I'm definitely not arguing against the awesomeness of python
bindings and glade, or bringing up javascript vs. python for bindings.
The more languages supported the better.

Britt