 Cross-language future of open source desktops
started 3/18/2004; 8:57:51 PM - last post 3/21/2004; 4:01:25 PM
|
|
Mark Evans - Cross-language future of open source desktops 
3/18/2004; 8:57:51 PM (reads: 10446, responses: 6)
|
|
|
|
Mark Evans - Re: Cross-language future of open source desktops
3/19/2004; 1:40:26 PM (reads: 519, responses: 0)
|
|
|
More from Havoc in his 2004-03-19 diary entry. By the way, Havoc works for RedHat as a major GNOME developer.
I consider Havoc's thinking limited. Viewing Java-lite as the best option within an artificially limited subset of languages (now and future, including e.g. DSLs) is problematic. Havoc balances political, not technical factors. Viewing C# as a major contender arises from competition presented by the MONO project. Otherwise why would a Linux GNOME desktop wizrd contemplate any Microsoft language? I guess the GNOME/MONO competition is what Havoc means by "fragmentation."
The Register ran an interesting article about the MONO project contending that it's a waste of energy: "The major achievement of this project appears to be using somebody else’s compiler to build a compiler that will compile the compiler."
Of course I respect Havoc and appreciate his labors. It's also nice that the MONO folks are effectively open-sourcing and platform-porting .NET (or a subset thereof). I just think that language issues so well known and loved by LtU folks should have a more prominent place setting at this particular table.
|
|
Paul Snively - Re: Cross-language future of open source desktops
3/21/2004; 1:28:25 PM (reads: 393, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Mark Evans: It may not quite relate but I will plug my idea that languages should target a common intermediate compiler language, not a common language runtime.
So what do you think of C--?
|
|
Pierre Phaneuf - Re: Cross-language future of open source desktops
3/21/2004; 1:58:34 PM (reads: 382, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I am a bit bitter about the fact that the older papers that Havoc references describes almost point-for-point my own XPLC project that I started a bit before he wrote this. He even commented on an article, very early on, where he rightfully pointed out holes in my proposal of the time.
|
|
Mark Evans - Re: Cross-language future of open source desktops
3/21/2004; 3:12:50 PM (reads: 369, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Regarding open-source desktop issues comes an insightful article from The Register:
But we don't need to get into a religious argument here about whether open source should be totally embraced, or whether it can happily exist as an adjunct to proprietary systems, because the current government approach is clearly faulty. One of the things open source is about is opening up the competitive landscape. It makes it easier for small outfits to build systems using freely-available components, and thus allows them to compete more effectively against large organisations. But by working with large companies who position themselves as 'taking the risk out of open source', government is missing the point, and basically treating open source as just another proprietary alternative.
Regarding c-minus-minus see my last post on this topic.
|
|
Mark Evans - Re: Cross-language future of open source desktops
3/21/2004; 3:22:38 PM (reads: 370, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Regarding XPLC, please consider instead the UNO framework from OpenOffice. It is about the same thing and they could use someone like you. There are such things as bridges between UNO and COM if you really want to use COM.
There was a prior post about UNO.
|
|
|
|
|
quite a few languages use c as an intermediate, my own for example.
Altough portability can get a bit troublesome when working with api's.
Open source is a fine way to license software, but im not sure its a good way to develop it, what for motivation do programmers have to listen to a designer ?
|
|
|
|