Re: Where is Gnome heading?

["Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman gmail com>]

On 10/5/06, Daniel Kasak <dkasak nusconsulting com au> wrote:
> sardaukar siet wrote:
>
> > Is there a 3.x coming anytime soon?
>
> Changing the major version of a product usually implies a break in
> backwards compatibility. Perhaps a change from 2.x to 3.x for Gnome
> would go along with a change from gtk-2.x to gtk-3.x. That said, I'm not
> looking forward to 3.x, as I'm quite happy with the way our custom-built
> gtk2 software works.
>
> > Where are the revolutionary ideas on the desktop?
>
> Compiz? Enlightenment? I think these projects are pushing the
> revolutionary stuff on the desktop. I don't see gnome so much as a
> desktop 'product' as a collection of desktop software - probably because
> I don't use Gnome / Metacity directly ... I use Enlightenment, with
> gnome software. For me, the software means things like nautilus, totem,
> gimp, evince. I'm quite happy with the way these work, and I can't
> really see any revolutionary changes ahead for these products.
>
> > Is maintaining such a large C-codebase becoming a nightmare to manage?
>
> ?
>
> > If so, why not dump C?
>
> I write all my apps in Perl ( gtk2-perl ), but when I get around to
> putting some finishing touches on my Perl projects, I'll be heading
> *towards* C, not away from it. C seems to be the choice of language for
> Linux developers. Maybe for simple desktop stuff like photo management
> etc it doesn't exactly make sense to write the *GUI* in C, but it
> certainly makes sense to write the *libraries* in C, and once you've got
> developers writing libraries in C, then they're free to write apps in C
> too. People are free to write competing software in other languages.
>
> > Why not start a GNOME-3 project and start adding experimental code and
> > features to it?
>
> What's with the pre-occupation with the number 3? :) There is enough
> experimental code slipping into so-called stable releases. For example,
> I'm having to rebuild quite a bit of software on a number of desktop
> machines ( ie downgrade to gtk-2.8.x ) at the moment because of some
> interesting bugs in gtk-2.10.x's treeview stuff. What sort of
> experimental stuff are you looking for anyway?
>
> > Please consider embracing C#
>
> I don't think so. The minute people start rewriting bits of gnome in C#
> is the minute I jump ship. I think people are more than aware of the
> legal minefield Gnome would be wading into by embracing a Microsoft
> technology such as C#. At the *very* least, assuming they don't use
> their trademark dirty tactics to crush the competition, we would be
> playing an eternal game of catch-up. That's required for a project like
> OpenOffice, where MS Office compatibility is an absolute requirement to
> get people to use their product. But this requirement - C# compatibility
> - is NOT a requirement for gnome or for desktop linux. Why do we have to
> lend credibility and developers to their environment anyway? What's
> wrong with C for libraries and scripting languages such as Perl and
> Python for lazy people? Sure there are good reasons for not using C for
> everything. But there's a BIG difference between advising people against
> using C, and advising people to use C#. For example, Hell will freeze
> over before I use C#.
>
> --
> Daniel Kasak
> IT Developer
> NUS Consulting Group
> Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway
> North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060
> T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989
> email: dkasak nusconsulting com au
> website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-list mailing list
> gnome-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list

I sincerely hope that GNOME Development does not move toward C#, In my
opinion the world should shift more toward C not away from it. I Chose
the Gnome Desktop over KDE just because Gnome used C. C being Error
prone is not a large issue, with great power comes great
responsibility. Don't get me wrong I have very few issues with RAD
languages like C#, it has it's place(to test Proof of concepts.)

 There is a GREAT deal of well written, debugged and time tested Flat
C Source available on the Internet. glib is becoming one of them.
People Just need to learn that leverage the use of this code can begin
to close the gap between a RAD language and  Flat C.

I also would Jump ship *IF* a move to C# was ever seriously considered.

Sam Fourman Jr.