I would use C++ if we care about performance (and I'd care), Objective C if we don't.
Inviato da iPhone Il giorno 01/mar/2012, alle ore 20:46, Brian Duffy <[email protected]> ha scritto: > 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 23:31 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 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
