On 10/5/06, Daniel Kasak <dkasak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > sardaukar siet wrote: > > > Is there a 3.x coming anytime soon? > > Changing the major version of a product usually implies a break in > backwards compatibility. Perhaps a change from 2.x to 3.x for Gnome > would go along with a change from gtk-2.x to gtk-3.x. That said, I'm not > looking forward to 3.x, as I'm quite happy with the way our custom-built > gtk2 software works. > > > Where are the revolutionary ideas on the desktop? > > Compiz? Enlightenment? I think these projects are pushing the > revolutionary stuff on the desktop. I don't see gnome so much as a > desktop 'product' as a collection of desktop software - probably because > I don't use Gnome / Metacity directly ... I use Enlightenment, with > gnome software. For me, the software means things like nautilus, totem, > gimp, evince. I'm quite happy with the way these work, and I can't > really see any revolutionary changes ahead for these products. > > > Is maintaining such a large C-codebase becoming a nightmare to manage? > > ? > > > If so, why not dump C? > > I write all my apps in Perl ( gtk2-perl ), but when I get around to > putting some finishing touches on my Perl projects, I'll be heading > *towards* C, not away from it. C seems to be the choice of language for > Linux developers. Maybe for simple desktop stuff like photo management > etc it doesn't exactly make sense to write the *GUI* in C, but it > certainly makes sense to write the *libraries* in C, and once you've got > developers writing libraries in C, then they're free to write apps in C > too. People are free to write competing software in other languages. > > > Why not start a GNOME-3 project and start adding experimental code and > > features to it? > > What's with the pre-occupation with the number 3? :) There is enough > experimental code slipping into so-called stable releases. For example, > I'm having to rebuild quite a bit of software on a number of desktop > machines ( ie downgrade to gtk-2.8.x ) at the moment because of some > interesting bugs in gtk-2.10.x's treeview stuff. What sort of > experimental stuff are you looking for anyway? > > > Please consider embracing C# > > I don't think so. The minute people start rewriting bits of gnome in C# > is the minute I jump ship. I think people are more than aware of the > legal minefield Gnome would be wading into by embracing a Microsoft > technology such as C#. At the *very* least, assuming they don't use > their trademark dirty tactics to crush the competition, we would be > playing an eternal game of catch-up. That's required for a project like > OpenOffice, where MS Office compatibility is an absolute requirement to > get people to use their product. But this requirement - C# compatibility > - is NOT a requirement for gnome or for desktop linux. Why do we have to > lend credibility and developers to their environment anyway? What's > wrong with C for libraries and scripting languages such as Perl and > Python for lazy people? Sure there are good reasons for not using C for > everything. But there's a BIG difference between advising people against > using C, and advising people to use C#. For example, Hell will freeze > over before I use C#. > > -- > Daniel Kasak > IT Developer > NUS Consulting Group > Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway > North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060 > T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989 > email: dkasak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au > _______________________________________________ > gnome-list mailing list > gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list > I sincerely hope that GNOME Development does not move toward C#, In my opinion the world should shift more toward C not away from it. I Chose the Gnome Desktop over KDE just because Gnome used C. C being Error prone is not a large issue, with great power comes great responsibility. Don't get me wrong I have very few issues with RAD languages like C#, it has it's place(to test Proof of concepts.) There is a GREAT deal of well written, debugged and time tested Flat C Source available on the Internet. glib is becoming one of them. People Just need to learn that leverage the use of this code can begin to close the gap between a RAD language and Flat C. I also would Jump ship *IF* a move to C# was ever seriously considered. Sam Fourman Jr. _______________________________________________ gnome-list mailing list gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
