Hi! On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:16 AM Michal Vašut <michal.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Uff, I have feeling (from your text) like I've been pierced by thousands > of swords. I've meant no offense nor asked from you to do anything. I've > only asked the reason why and from your response I've found the reason is > historical. That's all I've wanted to hear and I fully understand that > transition to some modern technology is pretty resource expensive or > impossible (in my work me and team, we are maintaining and improving 20+ > years old legacy monster code written in Delphi, so be ensured that I quiet > know what you are talking about) > Yes sorry. My answer was definitely a bit annoyed, I should not have written it this way. It's just that we get this question once every few months (maybe more, I don't follow all discussions/ML much) and regular requests to change to this or that language (whatever is the current fashion, javascript, python, rust…). It's just a bit annoying. Also the time I wrote this answer (10PM) probably did not help. But in any case, I should not have written away any frustration to you. So, sorry again for this. As you say, yeah the shorter answer is "it's historical". Let's keep it at it and pretend I have not written the previous answer. ;-) Thanks! Jehan P.S.: this said, I really meant it when I say I am all for genius contributions proving us wrong. For this or other topics, the best option is often to just propose a patch. Of course it's a risk and is high work (like really really; I would expect this to take many many many months full time to port every single bit), but that's also what I do when I want to contribute to some other software. I don't wait for approval, I do and hope for the best. :-) On Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 22:00 Jehan Pagès <jehan.marmott...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:05 PM Michal Vašut <michal.va...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Cool, thanks for info. I've checked the page on your blog and have some >>> notes to metadata that would be included: >>> >>> <requires> >>> <id version="2.10" compare="ge">org.gimp.GIMP</id> >>> </requires> >>> >>> I assume that "ge" value of "compare" attribute means "greater or >>> equal". That's the possible way to do it. Here is another way how other >>> systems deals with the same problem: >>> https://madewithlove.be/tilde-and-caret-constraints/ >>> And here some related tester: https://semver.npmjs.com >>> >> >> I am not going to change the appdata format. If you absolutely wish to go >> this way, you can contribute to the format specification (they are hosted >> at freedesktop), though to be fair, I doubt they are going to change it (it >> has been used for years now, and is widely spread on Linux distributions: >> basically all software management is based on this nowadays), nor do I see >> much need (as you say yourself even!). >> >> I don't say one way is better than other, it's just to prevent you >>> reinventing the wheel (in case you are not aware of this way). >>> >> >> Well the whole point is to not reinvent any wheel, which is why I am not >> going to change anything here. >> >> >>> 2nd thing, I'm missing Tags section in metadata, it's not necessary, but >>> nice to have - great sorting / grouping ability. >>> >> >> That's what the `<keywords>` tag is for, I believe. >> >> --- >>> >>> BTW I've also checked the code in repo (for the 1st time) and realized >>> that it's written in C. Just out of curiosity, why is that? Historical >>> reasons? Performance reasons? IMHO it brings huge complexity >>> >> >> For the same reason I am not going to change the appdata format: when you >> contribute to a software, you don't try to change all its basics. And GIMP >> is indeed written in C. This has been so for 23 years now. I don't see why >> it is complex by the way. I have programmed in a lot of languages (many >> script languages as well, I even maintain some software mostly made in >> Python, etc.) and I find C just fine. >> >> >>> * in code itself - only emulation of OOP through GObject creates lot of >>> code >>> * for developers - the graphical math, theorises algorithms are >>> difficult on its own, now here is C code that is in this age quiet hardcore >>> to use with its non-OOP / structured paradigm ( most of devs code in OOP >>> languages these days). Well I can definitely read and understand what's >>> going on in the Gimp code, but it would take quiet long time to write >>> something useful. >>> >>>> >> I am not interested in discussing a port of GIMP to some language X, if >> not for the first reason that the work required to do such port would just >> block us for years (and you would not see GIMP 3 for like 10 years?! >> Neither the extension manager as well of course, since we'd have no time to >> implement it anymore, nor any of the cool new features we are bringing in >> nowadays). >> >> Now I am happy to be wrong, and if someone were to port the GUI part of >> GIMP into some well maintained and interesting/powerful/simple language, >> making any graphics change easier, without any regression or feature loss, >> if this person contributes us a working patch tomorrow, I test it, it just >> works and keeps all the "promises", then I'd be the first to consider the >> patch for inclusion (though I would not be the only one to decide). But >> other than this, please don't ask us to do some work which we find not >> useful. I have a lot of things where I want to see GIMP improve (see my >> signature; we are making an animation film, as a professional studio, and >> my main worry is not the language of GIMP but what it can do and how, and >> if it is stable/fast) and spending years to change our base language is >> certainly not one of these. >> Sorry. :-) >> >> Jehan >> >> -- >> ZeMarmot open animation film >> http://film.zemarmot.net >> Liberapay: https://liberapay.com/ZeMarmot/ >> Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot >> Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot >> > -- ZeMarmot open animation film http://film.zemarmot.net Liberapay: https://liberapay.com/ZeMarmot/ Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
