Re: Porting of Python extensions?

Tim Horton wrote:

Tim Vera

On Jul 8, 2009, at 17:53, Magnus Therning <magnus therning org> wrote:

Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 02 juillet 2009 à 18:03 +0300, Xan Lopez a écrit :
Open bugs with the extensions and me or someone else will surely port
those, they sound pretty simple.
I have to say I’m also not fond of the JavaScript idea. Is it possible now
to access the DOM tree from the extensions? If it’s still not, it sounds
like a big regression from the Python extensions, from which you can use
the tons of existing Python modules.

Yes, I second that.  I'm currently struggling with rewriting Epilicious
(with a renaming in the process) in Seed.  The lack of basic things like a
dictionary type is really quite a nuisance.  The same goes for a set type.
I'm sure there are quite a few other things that I'll miss as I go along.

Agreed. Make a list and we'll see what we can do. A library of types goes
against the whole minimal-platform thing Robb was preaching when we first
sat down and wrote Seed, but we've already reached beyond that, so I don't
see any reason not to work on it. I'm assuming that your complaint about
heaviness of dropping to glib is just over the syntax, right, and that
attractive JavaScript-looking wrappers would be enough?  That's my biggest
thing, I think... The syntactic heaviness, not performance/memory. I'm going
to play around after ephy seed shell.

Yes, the heaviness is regarding syntax.  It just feels wrong to have to
specify things like comparison functions when creating a dictionary, and then
using methods like add() and lookup() instead of simply indexing.

I'd argue that minimality is good, but only on some levels.  Pleas do keep
the Seed _interpreter_ small, with a small set of _built-in_ types.  But on
top of that there is a real need for a rich set of modules/libraries.  Without
it Seed/JS simply won't take off in Gnome... well, at least I won't be very
happy with having to rewrite "basic functions" over and over.  I fear that
would push Seed in the same direction as Guile, OCaml, etc, i.e. to obscurity.

I'll put together a list as I come across stuff that I miss :-)

On the whole I'm so far not completely against Seed as a replacement of
Python as an extension language.  However, at the moment the missing pieces
are painfully obvious.  In the long term Seed does offer a chance of better
support and better integration (e.g. I hope I'll be able to stop
re-compiling epiphany for AMD64 just because the Python bindings break when
compiled with optimisation on that platform, a bug that's been known for
years now).

Oh, BTW, I could _really_ need a Seed Console extension! :-)

I have a working seed console (sorry about the slow, I've been in and out of
home a lot) except for one important thing: redirection of stdout. So like
... Seed's print is redirected, and the response from the repl, and
exceptions, but not everything else (any printing from C).  When I get home
(iPhone = not the best Seed hacking device!) again, I promise I'll finish
implementing history and send it to you in the state it's in, as it's
already plenty useful!

Cool! :-)


Magnus Therning                        (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)          Jabber:|twitter: magthe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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