proposal for full application scripting language in KDE 4

[Matt Rogers]

On Sunday 08 October 2006 10:29, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> On Sunday 08 October 2006 16:50, Matt Rogers wrote:
> > Why don't we let the people who are actually doing the work decide?
> >
> > This whole debate/thread/flamewar/whatever you want to call it is
> > pointless.   This is not a democracy. If you want your favorite language
> > to have "first-class status" go do the work yourself.
>
> I'd bet dollars to donuts that we're going to see both the Ruby and Python
> bindings ported to KDE 4.  In light of that, and the sentiments expressed
> by the technical working group:
>
> "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."
>

We have two or three excellent bindings already. Let the bindings folks fight 
it out amongst themselves as to which one to make into a "core" binding. 

> "The TWG actually thinks about requiring that at least one central
> application in KDE 4 is not written in C++."
>

And yet the TWG is not here to replace the "the one who does the work decides" 
rule. So they can't really require anything. They can express their support 
for and interest in such a thing, but ultimately, they can't require anything 
unless they're going to do the work themselves.

> So how do you decide between them?  Well, I'd like to at least see if a
> concensus can be reached before defaulting to the TWG making the decision
> by fiat.
>

You don't decide between them. If people do the work, it will happen. 
Consensus will be reached when people actually do the work. If nobody does 
the work, then there will be no other "core" binding.

--
Matt