Hmm. When was the last time you tried it? I have not been using it for a long time but I have managed to do quite a lot with Vala/Clutter and so far it has been pretty stable. I just wish it had better debug integration. Still, I am far from a complete application so things may crop up. For now, I am liking the ease and flexibility of it. What language would you recommend for a *standard* programming environment with GNOME, other than C?
2012/3/1 Michele De Pascalis <[email protected]> > 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 > > -- Duff
_______________________________________________ gnome-love mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
