On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Christian Neumair <[email protected]>wrote:
> [orignally and accidentally just sent to Owen Taylor in private] > > Dear Owen, > > 2009/11/2 Owen Taylor <[email protected]>: > > GJS and SpiderMonkey: Currently gnome-shell is build using the > > GJS bindings to Javascript which work with the Mozilla SpiderMonkey > > Javascript engine. The comparison to seed/JavascriptCore has been > > discussed quite a bit in the past, I don't want to go into in > > detail here; basically the advantages for us are: > > I have not been following the GNOME shell discussions, but I wonder > why we JavaScript is needed at all. Now that some of the core modules > exhibit Python, suddently JavaScript is discussed. I have always > considered programming and script languages as interchangeable > (besides syntactic and refactoring sugar), so we need a good argument > for adding new ones that just make the dependency stack larger and > larger. I'd really strongly opt for "C + Mono + one scripting > language" or "C + Mono" or "C + one scripting language" when we talk > about the core desktop. I see no advantage whatsoever in a Babylonian > approach -- unless you convince me with good arguments. > > So I was checking to see how popular javascript is compared to the others. Javascript is much more popular than our other bindings except for C and Java according to this website: http://langpop.com/ This seems to me that it might be a good investment in having javascript if it means that we can build momentum from a popular language and have more people from other OSes be able to take advantage of GNOME technologies. My two cents. sri -- -- Sriram Ramkrishna (sriram.ramkrishna_@@[email protected] (remove _@@_)
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
