Martin Nordholts (enselic@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> I'm trying hard to find time hacking on GIMP, and not having to waste
> time on GObject C boiler plate means a lot to me. At first I was
> thinking "what the hell, I'll just come up with the the damn
> boilerplate code manually then". But right after I began doing that I
> started to feel like I was wasting my time, and I can't stand that
> feeling.
Hm. This paragraphs leaves me a bit perplexed, because it gives the
impression that the most important thing about including vala is to make
you more comfortable with our codebase. You blame mitch for a blunt
dismissal, but this reads a lot like bluntly forcing down something
through mitchs throat. Not sure if that is any better.
I must say that - while I have my share of frustrations with the gobject
boilerplate code - I don't think that adding vala helps the quality of
the Gimp codebase. And this is IMHO what should be in our focus.
>From reading a lot of code in a lot of different free software projects
I have to say, that Gimp still is one of the shining examples regarding
consistency and quality of the source code. This has a lot to do with
mainly Sven and Mitch investing countless hours into refactoring and
restructuring the code, enforcing a common code structure and generally
fighting against sloppiness.
I don't see how mixing this code with code written in a new language
will help the quality of the source. Vala code will inherently develop a
set of patterns that differs from the C code (and don't underestimate
the value of grepping through the code base). Also new contributors will
not only have to learn about GObject and GTK+, they have to learn vala
as well. And adding vala *is* adding a new entry barrier, vala is by no
means a lingua franca.
Bye,
Simon
--
simon@xxxxxxxx http://simon.budig.de/
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
