[Geany-devel] Set Filetypes Menu - group names

[Matthew Brush]

On 04/29/11 09:06, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:13:05 -0700
> Matthew Brush<mbrush at codebrainz.ca>  wrote:
>
>> I'm sure you can see what I mean, there's a lot of gray area using the
>> term Compiled, since many languages can either be compiled to machine
>> code, interpreted by a VM/runtime, compiled then interpreted, compiled
>> to one format then another, compiled just in time, and so on.
>
> Obviously all source code is compiled at some point. The Compiled group
> all have one thing in common - separate compilation is normally
> required before execution. This is still true for Java. Python compiles
> on the fly, and is obviously thought of as a scripting language rather
> than a compiled one.

I guess I just don't see much difference between a .class/.jar file and 
a .pyc/.egg at this level.  Python is typically not compiled on the fly, 
it's compiled once, and then the bytecode is run many times, it only 
compiles on the fly when there's no up to date .pyc file.  Usually 
you'll have compiled .pyc/.pyx files in your system directories, PATH, 
etc., AFAIK.

A (probably bad) analogy would be like grouping computers by "those with 
a hard drive" and "those which run Windows".  Which group does a laptop 
fit in?  A desktop?  A server?  A thin client?

>> - By the current categories, but putting filetypes under each one they
>> fit in.
>
> that depends on how you interpret compiled.

This is how I feel about the current grouping.

>> - By just Programming Languages, so that the Compiled and Scripting
>> menus get merged.  This could make the menu long/scroll.  SciTE does
>> this but with fewer languages.
>
> I really don't see what's wrong with the current separation, after a
> first glance at each it should be easy to understand.

The same could be said about the old terminology, however inaccurate.

>
>> - By alphabetic order, with a menu item for each letter of the alphabet
>> unless no filetypes fall under a letter, then don't show it.  This could
>> be ugly in terms of code/i8n and appearances.  IIRC another editor is
>> doing this (Notepad++?).
>
[...]
> Not sure this proposal is better.

It's the only concrete grouping, thought I don't necessarily desire it 
like this for obvious reasons.


Anyway, it's not such a big deal, and Compiled is more accurate than 
Programming, so thanks for addressing it.

Cheers,
Matthew Brush