On 03/29/2011 02:45 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote: > 2011/3/29 LightningIsMyName<lightningismyname@xxxxxxxxx>: >> ** Re-Discussing GIMP's programming language ** >> For core (non-UI), continue using GObject, use code generators (such >> as turbine) and do copy/paste/replace for existing GObject classes >> (for the rare case where the generator won't be enough). > > Hi, > > Unfortunately I couldn't attend the meeting and affect the outcome of > the discussion, but I still want to comment on it: > > GObject C boilerplate is a general productivity problem not bound to > any specific kind of code, it doesn't make sense to treat core and UI > code differently. Right, it doesn't make sense to make a difference here. And the summary doesn't quite reflect the result of the discussion. Regarding productivity: I don't know how you measure "more productive" on a scale from zero to zero. There is simply not much contribution currently, and blaming GObject for that is lame, and attempting a fix where you earlier put the blame is activism. As I said before, let's please work on our public interface, That maybe has the potential of attracting new developers. I already gave the reasons why I think adding another language won't. > Regarding code generators: that's basically how we will use Vala, I > don't see why e.g. turbine would be better to use for this. Turbine is a comfortable replacement for: - copy existing class with SameNumberOfWords - do s/OldName/NewName/ and s/old_name/new_name/ - remove junk - skeleton done Vala is a programming language and *not* a code generator. You also don't consider gcc a code generator because it has some internal representation in between C and machine code. ciao, --Mitch _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
