On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Jürg Billeter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 16:12 +0200, [email protected] wrote: > > But I think having classes and some more oop machinery will > > be also useful in micros with very low resources (32-64Kb of memory), > > where of course a full framework doesn't make any sense (nor a rich > > string class etc...) > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the continuation of the Dova experiment will be better > > > suited for embedded hardware (where you can't or don't want to use > > > GLib). It will support interfaces and it will allow embedding the > needed > > > bits of the runtime library into the executable without making the > > > executable larger than necessary. > > > > I agree, but taking Dova as a reference I think that should be usable > > with the bare minimum. > > > > For example why Uri, Node, ArrayList, List are member of the dova-base > lib? > > One hypothetical library should include just the minimum to implement > > classes, interfaces and signal, leaving all the rest, and I mean also > > rich string classes or other enanched datatypes, to the upper layers. > > Unused parts of the library will not have any impact on the size of the > binary in the current plan. > How will this be achieved? Dead function elimination by the C compiler and multiple static libraries like in Dova? > > > The syntax won't be identical to Vala > > > but as code typically cannot be reused between Vala/GObject and > > > > > Vala/POSIX either, I don't expect this to be a big issue. > > > > Will still > > be a C based language? A lot of people are used to C in micro land ;) > > Are you referring to a C backend or to C-like syntax? > C-like syntax ;) , but I think that the C backend will remain right? > > > (On a side note I'm not sure that I like the result = blah of the dova > > profile, it reminds me vb6 when you have to write funcion_name = blah, > > and I think that return blah is still better and more clear) > > The current plan is to move back to return statements, although possibly > with a caveat that the return will not be allowed to act as an arbitrary > jump. > Cool, what will substitute the arbitrary jump then? > > Jürg > Thanks for the info. Regards, Andrea
_______________________________________________ vala-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
