On 03/29/2011 02:45 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> 2011/3/29 LightningIsMyName<lightningismyn...@gmail.com>:
>> ** Re-Discussing GIMP's programming language **
>> For core (non-UI), continue using GObject, use code generators (such
>> as turbine) and do copy/paste/replace for existing GObject classes
>> (for the rare case where the generator won't be enough).
> Unfortunately I couldn't attend the meeting and affect the outcome of
> the discussion, but I still want to comment on it:
> GObject C boilerplate is a general productivity problem not bound to
> any specific kind of code, it doesn't make sense to treat core and UI
> code differently.
Right, it doesn't make sense to make a difference here.
And the summary doesn't quite reflect the result of the discussion.
Regarding productivity: I don't know how you measure "more productive"
on a scale from zero to zero. There is simply not much contribution
currently, and blaming GObject for that is lame, and attempting a fix
where you earlier put the blame is activism. As I said before, let's
please work on our public interface, That maybe has the potential of
attracting new developers. I already gave the reasons why I think
adding another language won't.
> Regarding code generators: that's basically how we will use Vala, I
> don't see why e.g. turbine would be better to use for this.
Turbine is a comfortable replacement for:
- copy existing class with SameNumberOfWords
- do s/OldName/NewName/ and s/old_name/new_name/
- remove junk
- skeleton done
Vala is a programming language and *not* a code generator. You also
don't consider gcc a code generator because it has some internal
representation in between C and machine code.
Gimp-developer mailing list