Re: official support for more scripting languages in gnome needed

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 07:51:15PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> > Firstly, security - python is more secure than C because it doesn't allow
> > buffer overruns due to its handling of strings as a first class type.  It
> > is also less likely to be susceptible to side channel attacks because it
> > doesn't interpret strings as side effects.  python programs are shorter
> > and are thus easier to analyse and test.
> 
> And embedded macros are not written in C.

We can make them.  I don't see a difference here.  Look at entity.

The fact that we use a scripting language has nothing to do with the fact
that we'll allow macros with full privilages.

> > Secondly, memory - it has been brought up before, and is worth
> > re-iterating.  interpreted languages often use less memory because of the
> > higher level constructs available, and because more code is shared between
> > processes.
> 
> But you have to load an interpreter.  In some cases a copy of the interpreter
> *per* script.

Well your OS sucks.  On my linux box the executable gets paged in once.  The only
pages that are separate from processes is the runtime data.  I would be interested
in some real meassures, but I can imagine that for many little applets you might get
better memory usage for a scripting language.  (don't use top, use free)

> Fine.  I have no problem with scripting languages being used in a RAD
> environment.
> 
> ****BUT DON'T FORCE THEM ON ME WHEN I DON'T WANT THEM****

Then don't use them.  If core gnome apps depend on them, then boohoo.  I'm
less worried about you not using GNOME, then about the ease of use of GNOME.
Come to think of it.  I don't care if you use GNOME at all.

The point here is:  Scripting lanugages make for more better and less buggier
applications for the regular joe user to use.  And the regular joe user does
not have arbitrary prejudices against scripting languages.  If I asked my mom
what "scripting language" is, she wouldn't have the faintest clue.  And yes, she
wouldn't need to.  All she would get would be apps that don't crash and do more
stuff.

> I don't think you guys are convinced as to why I don't want to run these, but
> the fact of the matter is - I want the choice.  I want to choose *what* I do
> and do not run on my machine.  If you take this choice away from me, I *will*
> go somewhere else.  That is all I have to say.

It's a stupid choice to have.  For example I could decide I want to run GNOME
without requiring C.  And if you guys don't provide that I'll go somewhere else.

George