Re: [Vala] inline C

[Yu Feng <rainwoodman gmail com>]

On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 00:55 +0100, Hans Vercammen wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 00:51 +0600, Ildar Mulyukov wrote:
> > On 14.12.2008 00:00:31, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 17:46 +0000, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 23:44 +0600, Ildar Mulyukov wrote:
> > > > > What do you think about having C inline in Vala? This looks quite  
> > > > > natural for Vala. Especially while Vala is quite unperfect (having  
> > > > > 304 open bugs). This could ease implementing workarounds ;)
> > > > +1 it would be nicer for certain things to just use C rather than  
> > > > having to write vapi e.g. the uuid.vapi I had to write for wizbit,  
> > > > meant more code than just using C...
> > > > There would have to be some sanity wrapping though to make sure that  
> > > > the C stuff would work properly with the vala stuff...
> > >
> > > You can currently get the same effect by using extern keyword for c  
> > > functions in an included c file (you can pass a .c file to valac for  
> > > this purpose)
> > >
> > > The disadvantage to inlining is it destroys the platform independence  
> > > - IE you would not be able to create a gcc front end for vala nor  
> > > would you be able to have vala->c++ or vala->jvm/clr.
> >
> > 1. inlining asm is most unportable. But this did not prevent from  
> > adding it to GCC. Surely it should be documented as limiting  
> > portability.
>
> Vala is not a preprocessor for gcc, although I'm sure many people look
> at it this way. Embedding ASM/C could also horribly break the automatic
> memory management, one of the most overlooked key features. 
Is the 'break' an obligation? The embedded code can always be written in
a way such that conforms the automatic management.

> Also, I
> expect my vala code to go smoothly through the gcc compiler and to abort
> otherwise. Embedding might be nice in some cases, but no doubt it can
> generate uncontrollable side-effects. 
Uncontrollable by whom? If the programmer is skillful enough, she can
always control the side-effects of any piece of code written by
herself. 



> Like Jamie said; if there is
> specific need you can import the exotic stuff by using extern and
> dedicated c files or use the vala api files.
I would like to add to this point: 

dedicated c files also make the project layout cleaner. 

The need for inline low-level code usually indicates either that an
extra level of abstraction is needed in the project, or that the current
boundary between low-level and high-level semantics is inappropriate.

Machines can be happy if the ccode are written carefully, but a
bilingual text is usually difficult for human beings to understand; to
me this is more convincable than any other arguments against inline C.


- Yu
> > 2. Making different backends can be planned only when Vala will  
> > correctly implement 100% of it's features (delegates, properties). When  
> > time comes, we can limit this feature to just one backend, etc. etc.  
> > Anyway let's make small steps: those ones that we need; later we can  
> > change it ( XP approach ).
>
> I don't really favour this approach. Personally, I rather have limited
> functionality that works and is not expected to change as opposed to
> having a bunch of sugars that work in most cases and are removed/limited
> when proven to fail otherwise. The vala concept works fine, so I think
> it would better to target 1.0-stable and fix the relevant blocking bugs
> instead.

> Hans
>
> _______________________________________________
> Vala-list mailing list
> Vala-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list