Re: GNOME, .Net and Mono

On Sat, 2002-02-02 at 05:57, Pawel Salek wrote:
> On 2002.02.02 03:57 Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > [...]
> > THe way I'm imagining being based on Mono would work is similar to how
> > things are based on CORBA now, although perhaps better integrated,
> > easier to work with, and in many cases faster.  Instead of making a
> > CORBA call, you'd make a Mono call.
> My experience is that new architectural UI designs are usually slower, not 
> faster. I do not know of any exception, actually.

Well, if when writing a program in C, I'm forced to generate a Mono
call, which generates byte code that then must be interpreted, resulting
in an RPC, just to manipulate a window... ya, that'll suck.  *but*, if I
can trim out all that CORBA and Bonobo and such to use one single small
layer for RPC, I think it would be a lot faster.

> > Just because it's Mono, I don't think that means we'll be forced to use
> > any of the (likely) security/stability problems with MS's
> > implementation, or be forced to run closed code, or have to program in
> > C#.  As I understand it, it'll be more like the ultimate wrapper, the
> > ultime plugin architecture, the ultime scripting interface, etc. (or, at
> > least, until someone invents something better.  ^,^)
> "Ultimate" wrapper, "ultimate" plugin architecture, "ultimate" scripting 
> interface? I feel like I was reading a developer's fairly-tale: attractive 
> but having not much to do with reality. Well, that's just a feeling.

Well, I'm thinking along these lines:

As a wrapper, each language would only need *one* interface - the Mono
interface.  So instead of needing PyGTK, PyGNOME, PyBonobo, PyCORBA, and
whatever other ten billion, all slighty differently stylized Python
wrappers, there'd just be PyMono, and everything would be accessible
thru that.

For a scripting interface... well, Mono *would* be the scripting
interface.  You've got your itnerpreter built in, you have a huge amount
of support libraries, plus any exposed app functionality, and you won't
be limited to language.  You won't need a Python itnerface, a Perl
interface, a Ruby interface, a C# interface, etc. for each application.

The same is true for plugins.  Every app has a different plugin
architecture, and most of them are *erally* ugly (requires restarting
the app, or doesn't expose as much functionality as the scripting do,

While it won't be the perfect design (i.e. ultimate), it does seem
better than anything else I've seen to date.  Thus my additional comment
"until someone invents something better."  Which hasn't happened yet,
that I can tell.

> -pawel
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-devel-list mailing list
> gnome-devel-list gnome org

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