[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: proposal for full application scripting language in KDE 4
From:       "Zack Rusin" <zack () kde ! org>
Date:       2006-10-08 15:50:44
Message-ID: bdca6fac0610080850q42096eeep983ea7df29e3c462 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 10/8/06, Scott Wheeler <wheeler@kde.org> wrote:

> "So while we want to support non-C++ development, we want one excellent
> binding and I doubt we'll get one excellent one if we don't concentrate on
> one in the core. That doesn't mean other bindings will stop to exist."
>
> "The TWG actually thinks about requiring that at least one central
> application
> in KDE 4 is not written in C++."
>
> So how do you decide between them?


We don't. We let the solution naturally evolve. Just like we did with cd
burners back in the day. How many  big non-C++ KDE applications have you
written? How many has everyone in this thread written? How many do we have?
In each case the number is too small to form any reasonable decision. Just
let it be. The two points you quoted above are it. At this point and time
there's nothing more to them. We would like one core binding, period. We
would like at least one central KDE application written in it, period.

We have great infrastructure in place for Python, Ruby, JavaScript and with
QtJambi Java. Once one of those communities will produce a real application,
written from scratch within their respective framework, we'll have a clear
winner. Until then this is just another silly flamewar.

graphics ninja

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<span class="gmail_quote">On 10/8/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Scott Wheeler</b> \
&lt;<a href="mailto:wheeler@kde.org">wheeler@kde.org</a>&gt; \
wrote:</span><br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid \
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> &quot;So while we \
want to support non-C++ development, we want one excellent<br>binding and I doubt \
we'll get one excellent one if we don't concentrate on<br>one in the core. That \
doesn't mean other bindings will stop to exist.&quot; <br><br>&quot;The TWG actually \
thinks about requiring that at least one central application<br>in KDE 4 is not \
written in C++.&quot;<br><br>So how do you decide between them?&nbsp; \
</blockquote><div><br>We don't. We let the solution naturally evolve. Just like we \
did with cd burners back in the day. How many&nbsp; big non-C++ KDE applications have \
you written? How many has everyone in this thread written? How many do we have? In \
each case the number is too small to form any reasonable decision. Just let it be. \
The two points you quoted above are it. At this point and time there's nothing more \
to them. We would like one core binding, period. We would like at least one central \
KDE application written in it, period.  <br></div><br>We have great infrastructure in \
place for Python, Ruby, JavaScript and with QtJambi Java. Once one of those \
communities will produce a real application, written from scratch within their \
respective framework, we'll have a clear winner. Until then this is just another \
silly flamewar.  <br><div>&nbsp;<br>graphics ninja<br></div></div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]