2011/3/27 Michael Natterer <mi...@gimp.org>:
> On 03/27/2011 04:45 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
>> On 03/27/2011 02:12 PM, Michael Natterer wrote:
>>> As to the actual iussue of introducing whatever *additional*
>>> language in GIMP, I strongly doubt that it would help us in
>>> any way. It would increase the complexity of both building and
>>> programming because there would be two languages to learn,
>>> it would complicate the build system (new contributors
>>> would also have to learn to deal with autofoo makefiles dealing
>>> with both C and vala code). It would increase the barrier of
>>> getting new contributors into the project, not lower it.
>> It's funny, because I see it the other way around. With infrastructure
>> for and knowledge about how to use Vala in GIMP, the barriers of
>> getting new contributors is lowered, because they don't need to learn
>> GObject C boilerplate before writing code. Assuming of course that
>> most of our code is in Vala already...
> And this is *exactly* the problem. We would end up with programmers
> that quickly learnt vala, having no clue about GObject. That's
> absolutely horrible. Just like the people who only know how
> to write java or #C code. They know how to use all the fancy
> classes, but they have never implemented a list or anything
> lowlevel themselves. I don't want people who know vala, but
> don't "had to learn" GObject. Absolutely not. Knowing the
> foundations is an absolute prerequisite for any serious
How is it a problem that our code becomes so easy that even "dumb"
programmers can understand and improve it when we are not forced to
include patches from such "dumb" programmers? Why would an open source
project have as a goal to keep its code complex in order to limit the
set of people that are able to help out, especially a project that
wants more people to contribute? Besides, it is not only "dumb"
programmers that uses higher-level languages such as C# and Java.
My GIMP Blog:
"Why GIMP 2.8 is not released yet"
Gimp-developer mailing list