On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 00:03 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: >> * Should applications built with anything in the Bindings suite be accepted >> into the Desktop suite? >> - short to medium term >> - do we want the central components of our software to potentially be >> written in five to ten different languages and/or runtimes/platforms? >> - this leads very neatly into the next question >> >> >> * Is it time to redefine the suites and/or 'franchise' the release process? >> - medium term >> - this is not just about new suites, it's about redefining the current >> Desktop suite by its integration interfaces and central components; we >> need to make current suites serve us better before kicking off new stuff >> - http://perkypants.org/blog/2005/05/19/1116533413/ (last few paras) >> - start slow: don't even create new suites to begin with, just make sure >> the small number of apps that want to adopt our process and standards >> right now can do so - new/further governance of suites can come later > > Regarding just the above two issues: > > What if there is a bilateral subdivision of the desktop suite which > helps *distributors* distinguish between applications that support being > compiled AOT (C, C++, Mono AOT, Java GCJ, D?) and applications that run > JIT'd/VM'd (Mono JIT, Java JRE, Python, Ruby, Perl). It seems to me > that, at least conceptually if not technically, the division between the > two camps above is one of AOT/native compilation versus > JIT/VM'd/interpreted compilation.
I don't think this is an item worth dividing on. For languages like Mono (and Java with GCJ), the compile or JIT (for Mono) or interp (for GCJ) is purely a case-by-case performance decision. > Notice that both Java and Mono could be in either camp depending on how > the project's Makefiles are written ... in both the Mono AOT and Java > GCJ cases, libraries in use are shared between processes. Execution > performance is also (generally) higher. The statement that performance is generally higher isn't quite correct. However, it's completely besides the point for this discussion. > It would be interesting to get Miguel's take on whether or not Mono AOT > usage should be encouraged. In the Java GCJ case, it is encouraged for > use by its authors. Again, completely besides the point. The decision to AOT would be based on measurements. It doesn't address any of the issues in Jeff's email. -- Ben _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
