On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, something bad wrote: > On 09:21 Fri 25 Mar , Elifarley Callado Coelho Cruz wrote:
> > If Vala has some serious drawbacks, making C or other language a > > better choice, please point them out. i guess this is the way we should evolve this discussion: pointing out differences and feasability of the approached proposed, assuming that those proposing and discussing are willing to participate to a new developer group to be formed. Vala's code generation is a good point, yet we need to evaluate dependencies in the generated code, as something bad mentions: > AFAIK Vala software is glib2 dependent which is not good. yep. again call me conservative :) but i think glib2 is not even good on i386 machines ... :) definitely not appropriate for low resources, unless we have the possibility to have a stripped glib2 to satisfy Vala code.... > Also code generated by Vala compiler isn't quite human readable and > can't be easily optimized if necessary. indeed > I think Vala is not a good choice in this case. well let's hear more opinions and insights. so far i can see several drawbacks for Vala being stated. let me also add that we already have a netsukuku C implementation which used to work on older versions of the RFC, to start from. and of course, the vast majority of programmers use C, while the vast majority of devices can be targeted by C code, as Asbesto says. ciao
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Netsukuku mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dyne.org/mailman/listinfo/netsukuku
