Re: [sawfish] Re: [ANNOUNCE] rep-gtk-0.18.4 (other scheme..)

[Eli Barzilay <eli barzilay org>]

On May  6, GSR - FR wrote:
> Hi,
> eli barzilay org (2009-05-03 at 2352.02 -0400):
> > I don't how much difference there is between a gtk subset that is
> > important for a gui and for a wm, but the gtk support that will be
> > part of plt will be very easy to use directly.
> 
> Sawfish uses GTK+ mostly for the configuration tool, menu and pager;
> while frames are handled by itself.

In that case the gtk support should be easy, I think.


On May  6, GSR - FR wrote:
> Hi,
> eli barzilay org (2009-05-03 at 2206.24 -0400):
> > > I think the advantage of guile is that it's used by gimp, [...]
> > No -- the gimp plan was to eventually move to guile, but this was
> > never done (IIRC, the reason given was that it's too big or
> > something like that).  So it's still using a very small (and not
> > really good) Scheme interpreter.  FWIW, I think that sawfish is in
> > a different
> 
> The replaced it, SIOD -> TinyScheme (still not Guile). IIRC the
> interface is still generic, created by the C part, no GTK+ bindings
> at all.

Yes -- and both siod and tinyscheme are pretty much toy
implementations.  I won't be surprised if that will completely
disappear from gimp in a few years.


> > place which justifies a good language: Gimp uses Scheme for
> > writing automated scripts but it's a C application -- whereas
> > sawfish is mostly written in Scheme (and with a good language,
> > even more can move to Scheme, making it easier to hack).
> 
> I have some issues understanding what you say, so to make things
> clear for everyone: Gimp just runs the scripts via the Script-fu
> plugin, it is a long way before there is any recording. People are
> the ones that write scripts, by hand (OK, maybe someone wrote a code
> generating script...); [...]

Yes -- when I said "automated scripts" I meant that you write code
that performs operations on the image instead of doing the operations
manually.  No relation to recording.


> It is a bit messy, and yes, completly different case (SF vs GIMP
> needs). :]

Right -- the main difference, IMO, is that gimp uses scheme as a
slapped-on scripting language, rather than a core feature.  Consider
removing all Scheme code form gimp and from sawfish -- with the
former, it would look the same and most people won't even notice; but
with sawfish you'd be left with very little.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!