On 13-11-10 11:48 AM, Matthew Brush wrote:
On 13-11-10 11:45 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 10.11.2013 20:27, schrieb Matthew Brush:
On 13-11-10 07:40 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 10/11/2013 05:44, Matthew Brush a écrit :
Hi all,
In the spirit of the previous discussions about using C99 and C++ in Geany code with similar subject lines, I'd like to take a poll/discussion for allowing the use of Vala for new/re-written Geany code. [...]
Well… it's a little complicated. I agree that features from a higher-level language could help, it being C++, Vala or something. It's definitely shorter to write some things in those languages than in C, and memory management is definitely easier. I see one advantage in Vala over C++: that it actually is C ([1]), just like our current code.
I agree that Vala would help if we want to port the code to something more OOP-style -- since obviously the language supports it by itself. I agree it's probably a good idea. But the port won't happen magically.
Agreed, but one of the reasons I created this thread is to get agreement that we *can* use Vala and then when we do any refactoring, it makes it that much easier. I'm sure you already know I'm bringing this topic up because I'm willing to do a lot of the work :)
The problem I see is that using C from Vala requires a more or less manual interfacing, even if quite easy to write. This adds actual complexity. We could try by porting leaf modules to Vala and see (maybe utils?) -- since calling Vala API from C is native --, but it's probably not the modules that would benefit the most from the language.
This was my same thought. There are lots of "modules" in Geany that could benefit from re-factorings, but even starting with some of the low hanging fruit like utils, uiutils, any of the existing GObjects, including geanyobject.c which as a demo, I converted to Vala reducing the lines of code count from around 400+ to around 40:
Error 500 :(
Yeah, same here, I was hoping it would be back up by the time people visited or wasn't down for them :) I'm sure it'll come back online soon.
Maybe it's something specific to that Gist, so I re-pasted it in a new one:
https://gist.github.com/codebrainz/7403171
Cheers, Matthew Brush