By the way, I should point out that these remarks also apply to the geany direction thread. I also should point out this doesn't necessarily mean I'm opposed to vala, I'm just expressing concerns.
From this thread, it sounds like vala binds pretty well to C++ like python does, but also doesn't add bloat while simplifying the code. I don't think I've noticed python doing much to simplify gtk-centric code though, so would vala do better? If changing to vala is like changing to python, I'd be more inclined against it, although it would be good exerience to gain.
Thanks for all the replies :-)
Steve
From: Steven Blatnick <steve8track@yahoo.com>;
To: <devel@lists.geany.org>;
Subject: Re: [Geany-Devel] Let's use Vala
Sent: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 11:35:58 PM
Just to elaborate my "sources" ;-)
Personal Experience:
I suppose I should elaborate that the added complexity could be a result of having a mixture of old and new languages by trying to get them to work together so as not to lose all legacy features while migrating.Gedit:
Without trying to hurt any company's reputation, I work or worked at a company where the main code base was perl, but now they prefer Java. They couldn't just remove all of the legacy code, so getting the two languages to work together makes the code complicated. The other problem is they have adopted several different frameworks over the years, from JSF, JSP, to GWT running on various different services from apache (for the perl), tomcat4, tomcat6 (at the same time!), etc. This may not match up well with vala, since it appears vala is much more c++ compatible. Also, this project is a web service, which requires migrating between the technologies without downtime and without losing any existing data, introducing it's own complexity to the migration.
Basically the problem I see is that with each new direction (caused by changing opinions with new developers over the years, each with their own biases), we end up with a technicolor-dream-coat of convoluted technology. I saw this at other jobs too, where each new pet feature/project introduced more dependencies and required different know-how than each of the prior work. While the projects work, they've become very complex with all the passing between the various architectures/structures/technologies. Scrambled eggs, if you will.
When gedit changed from using GTK2 to GTK3 between gedit2 and gedit3, they introduced some regressions. They also required a complete rewrite of all plugins others had developed for the editor. While the new plugin infrastructure is better, I re-evaluated what editor I was using because if I had to rewrite them anyway, then maybe I would do so for another editor. Hence why I am writing plugins to use with geany :-) I also noticed that gedit started to use more memory.Gnome3/Unity:
Not only did they re-write everything, abandon their user-base, and upset a lot of people, myself included, but they also introduced many regressions and lost a lot of features. I realize we don't intend to change the principles of geany like they did, but making large code changes is bound to lead to us at least considering alternative ways of doing things, which in Gnome3's case wasn't always appreciated by the users.I realize these are not identical to switching to vala, but I present it as food for thought anyway.
Really, the Gnome Civil War between the programmers and the users, as I like to call it, has been a real sore spot for me and for linux-kind ;-)
I guess my concern is that for each time a project changes direction, the code risks introducing regressions, losing/alienating users, and requiring more dependencies.
Not to get too political, especially since this may be lost on some audiences, but not all "Change" is good change. If we make any drastic changes, I suggest starting a new project so we don't essentially overwrite a current one like the Gnome guys did.
All that said, it sounds like nobody is planning that big of a change (I hope).
Thanks,
Steve
On 11/11/2013 03:31 PM, Matthew Brush wrote:
On 13-11-11 08:38 AM, Steven Blatnick wrote:
[snip]
Changing languages almost always adds complexity and my humble opinion
is that it should be avoided, but I also don't know enough about vala to
say how easy it would be to include it in development.
[citation needed]
Like provide an example of a past experience/observation where a project switched from a similarly low-level language to a similarly high-level language where it added (rather than severely reduced) complexity.
Cheers,
Matthew Brush
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel