Vala compiles in C/GLib, that actually provides an object sistem written in C, using C structs to provide it, with reflection and all. Using structs to provide OOP is less performant than using native OOP classes: GLib is compiled in structs that are compiled in assembly, while native OOP classes are compiled in assembly without any implementation between. Briefly, GLib results in a system of structs to represent a system of structs, while native OOP implementations are just systems of structs. There is the difference of an implementation layer, that is overhead. It's quite similar to every runtime object system, like those in Objective C, Java, Python, ecc. Plus, compiling from C means low-level exceptions, while compiling from a native OOP language means high-level exceptions. However, I'm not so good at explaining such complicated concepts in English...hope you get it anyway.
2012/2/29 Arief M Utama <[email protected]> > > On 2/29/2012 8:05 PM, Michele De Pascalis wrote: > > Vala is translated in C/GLib before it's built, that means so many data > structures in assembly, that means overhead. And, Vala was quite unstable > the latest time I tried it, throwing meaningless low level exceptions (a * > good* inheritance from C). > > > Err... I don't really understands this. > > What are you saying actually? There should be no overhead in running time. > Maybe slight overhead only at compilation time. Which don't mean much if it > means increase in productivity and less programmer time used. > > Or, I misunderstood your point? Care to elaborate? > > All the best. > -arief > > > > 2012/2/27 Brian Duffy <[email protected]> > >> Personally, after quite a while deciding what language to use for my >> project, I went with Vala. I just did not want to deal with writing my >> application in C. If Vala could gain an excellent IDE with a proper visual >> debugger that isolated you from the underlying C code then I think that >> would make for a nice development environment. Problem is, I don't see the >> community getting this done with Vala. I'm just happy that they have done >> what they have! It's amazing really. However, you can't escape the fact >> that many of these contributions are made by people with other, more >> pressing responsibilities. The most successful ones are often sponsored by >> a larger company, but there contributions are sometimes limited to that >> company's needs. >> >> My biggest hope is for a company like Canonical to spend a good deal of >> time and money and develop a kick ass Vala IDE/Debugger and API even if >> they have to charge for it. >> >> >> >> 2012/2/27 Konstantin Evdokimenko <[email protected]> >> >>> Cocoa is not a single framework it has a lot of them, I think even more >>> than gtk+ and gnome have together. MS also has many technologies, >>> frameworks and solutions. So I'm thinking nothing is that bad with gnome, >>> but >>> maybe a good ide is needed >>> 27.02.2012 23 <27.02.2012%2023>:31 пользователь "Darton Williams" < >>> [email protected]> написал: >>> >>> > >>> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Michele Alex D. De Pascalis < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Just look around: Apple and Microsofts have their own SDKs, APIs and >>> IDEs perfectly working with them. Compared to these, developing for GNOME >>> is way too hard and complicated. Maybe we have the fastest software, but we >>> have to write with Gtk, which is just a toolkit, without anything else >>> really integrating it. And C is over, so autogenerating a wrapper isn't a >>> good solution (talking about gtkmm). If a newbie gets in touch with Cocoa >>> and Xcode, he gets templates, he gets wide documentation, he connects >>> events with handlers by a drag'n'drop, cutting on the IDE's editor. >>> >> But it's not just about the IDE itself, it's also about paradigms: >>> Apple chose Model View Controller and Delegation, and everything is written >>> around these, and it takes seconds to add a View to your application. >>> >> I'm saying this because I've been learning Cocoa for eight months, >>> and I had learnt C++ before. Even now I know C++ is better in many ways, >>> but trying back Gtk made me understand it's not about the language, now. >>> Those who write iOS or Mac apps know what I mean with all this. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> gnome-love mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love >>> > >>> > >>> > I fully agree with this statement - that GNOME desperately needs a >>> unified API/SDK. It would accelerate adoption of GNOME simply because >>> application development would become less of an arcane art. As a developer, >>> I feel that I could contribute to that effort. >>> > >>> > So how do we get started? :) >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > gnome-love mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnome-love mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Duff >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnome-love mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-love mailing > [email protected]http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-love mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love > >
_______________________________________________ gnome-love mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
