Hello, we are very sorry, but NOBODY can understand here, your short cuts (SDK OOP) and perhaps on the other side of these line, my last WRITTEN SUPPORT REQUEST question via E-mail to your SUPPORT GROUP?)
Can me please help somebody of these COMMUNITY there, to become personal contact with some UBUNTU user?!? I am from Bad Reichenhall and I want wo learn about these, I hope trustable COMMUNITY (UNIX .,...) Thanks a lot for your UNDERSTANDING that a NORMAL user cant understand these INFORMATIONS in these written foren! WE NEED MORE LEARNING by getting TEACHED through long term UBUNTU user and them have to get, it is in OUR BIBLE written: they have to get them FEE too and so our FOUNDATION make it possible to become a chance to be selfimployed at many different school projectes and these on many corner of the world... Praise GOD for all these different opinion about the WORD BIBLE. IT IS THE TRUTH about the darkness and so very HELPFULL to know that there are very INTERESTED social RULES inside too. TO HELP one another through the true LOVE OF GOD to all WHO need HELP to FIND THEM OWN RIGHT professions... Greetings Ing. Sabine Ilse Elise Richter -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:47:07 +0000 > Von: [email protected] > An: [email protected] > Betreff: gnome-love Digest, Vol 92, Issue 1 > Send gnome-love mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of gnome-love digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: GNOME needs some good SDK (Michele De Pascalis) > 2. Re: GNOME needs some good SDK (Brian Duffy) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 20:21:58 +0100 > From: Michele De Pascalis <[email protected]> > To: Arief M Utama <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [gnome-love] GNOME needs some good SDK > Message-ID: > <CABpcnvcysMAO5Ux15hTn=ubnemzwwr7375sojrvp8kcdp5w...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" > > 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 ???????????? "Darton Williams" < > >>> [email protected]> ???????: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > 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 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-love/attachments/20120301/720a2bcb/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:46:48 -0500 > From: Brian Duffy <[email protected]> > To: Michele De Pascalis <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [gnome-love] GNOME needs some good SDK > Message-ID: > <cahrdpkp5ygffxiztbmcnph0qz6qplnfohgspewded-q-tbq...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" > > 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 ???????????? "Darton Williams" < > >>>> [email protected]> ???????: > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-love/attachments/20120301/5fcc4564/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-love mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love > > > End of gnome-love Digest, Vol 92, Issue 1 > ***************************************** -- NEU: FreePhone 3-fach-Flat mit kostenlosem Smartphone! Jetzt informieren: http://mobile.1und1.de/?ac=OM.PW.PW003K20328T7073a -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de _______________________________________________ gnome-love mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-love
