kwallet and QCA

[Michael Pyne]

On Friday 13 June 2008, nf2 wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > In one case, you wanted KDE to replace its entire essential VFS
> > infrastructure with a new, unproven, unreleased one, which depended on
> > libraries KDE developers don't use/like and used a language that KDE
> > developers don't use/like.
>
> That's the attitude i will never ever understand. Perhaps because i am
> an outsider to both "projects".

Wait wait wait.  You will never understand why developers do not want to 
replace code which is working and well understood with code which is untested 
and has a different interface?

Seriously?

Making GNOME VFS and KIO compatible is something I understand, as that would 
increase the amount of compatibility between applications, and could lead to 
unifying the code into a separate library worked on both all DEs, not just 
GNOME or KDE if done right.

Doing this by gutting KIO in our case or by gutting GNOME VFS if you're a 
GNOME developer is just foolhardiness.

Or is the part you don't understand language preference?  I mean, maybe it 
doesn't look like it to you but C is increasingly becoming a dinosaur for the 
types of things most programmers are doing, and C++ is not much farther ahead.  
Dynamic languages like Python and JavaScript are much easier to develop in and 
"fast enough" for a lot of cases (and are getting faster everyday).

Even when C is what you want, whether for native code, library interfaces, or 
what have you, you're still shouldn't be coding in it. :)  Look at Vala 
(http://live.gnome.org/Vala).  It's a language which was created to bring a 
C#-like interface to GObject.  It compiles down to C so it's still compatible 
but you're not using C, you're using a better language.

So if language doesn't matter why are there coders coming up with new 
languages that essentially just write their program for them in a different 
syntax?

So please get off your high horse about choosing a language.  The reason we 
don't use C is because anything C is good for, C++ is better for.  We manage 
to maintain both source and binary compatibility just fine, KDE runs 
efficiently even on comparatively under-powered systems and if we really want 
to write imperative programs, C++ does that too.  Maybe C++ is not the best 
language, which is why I'm glad we have kdebindings.  But it's better than C 
99% of the time, and C-compatible for the other 1%.

I'm glad that tools are increasingly being developed to allow GTK+ users to 
focus less on correctly simulating subclassing using pure C and using macros 
everywhere to cast to the right widget type, but we've had this at least fixed 
for a very long time.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20080613/12e69d6d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20080613/12e69d6d/attachment.sig>