On 7/27/09, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 17:28, Luke Kenneth Casson > Leighton<l...@lkcl.net> wrote: > > On 7/27/09, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> XPCOM is self-deprecating. It's excessively costly for both callers and > >> implementors of its interfaces, both in runtime overhead and in > >> expressiveness restrictions. > > > > i'd say that that's a price paid for the incredible power and > > flexibility of what it brings, but hey, nobody said it would be easy > > :) i'm dead impressed that you got XPCOM right, and that it works as > > expected, by providing seamless inter-language communication - and now > > am a bit puzzled that it's to be deprecated. > > > Isn't that the same that GObject Introspection brings? You code in > whatever language that produces a .so with some metadata, then you can > call it from any language with bindings for g-o-i.
ah _ha_ - an assumption is ".so" :) xpcom and DCOM you don't need the .so, you just "register" the code with the infrastructure, and it gets called (on demand, by a caller). in c and c++ cases, that's a .so, but in the dynamic-language cases, it's definitely not the case. but to be honest i need to look up gobject introspection before answering, and i'm glad that you've brought it to my attention - i'm supposed to know about these things :) l. _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel