[Geany-Devel] Let's use Vala

[Matthew Brush]

On 13-11-10 03:02 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Yes, I understand how the "throws" are implemented in vala, but as I said,
>>> the existing C code isn't designed to handle that.
>>>
>>>
>> Much of the existing code uses GError-style errors, and any existing C
>> code that was made to to call Vala generated code would do the same, no
>> biggie. It's not like we'd throw an exception from a re-written function
>> without updating the caller code, that wouldn't even work, the compiler
>> would have a fit about missing (GError) parameter (unlike with C++
>> exceptions).
>>
>> Maybe I misunderstand your point still?
>
>
> No, you said it exactly right, the concern is we can't use Vala
> "exceptions" without changing the existing C code, which somewhat negates
> the benefits of Vala.
>

True, but it's not exactly difficult to update/add an argument on a C 
function, I think the compiler will kindly (or rudely :) even point out 
all the places that were missed.

> [...]
>
>> Or you honestly don't think Vala is a good fit at all for new/re-written
>> parts of Geany code?
>
>
> Not yet convinced, and TBH not really convinced about a progressive change
> to C++ either (my original mention that sparked the thread was meant to be
> a sarcastic throwaway comment :).  I understand your desire to keep the
> discussion high level, but the devil is in the annoying little details for
> languages, and their implementations, so you can't make a decision without
> examining those details.
>

I agree about C++, however much of a better language it is, it's not a 
great fit in Geany as it stands (although could probably be workable 
using GTKmm). IMO, Vala is the simplest way to get the most bang with 
least amount of friction with existing code/framework and all of the 
output C code from Vala is quite readable and for the most part maps 1:1 
to what we (at least me) would've wrote anyway.

>
>
>>
>>
>>   To be clear, tinkering with what language is used to tack more bandages on
>>> to the current Geany design is a waste of time.  Choosing a better
>>> language
>>> to implement a better design might be worthwhile.
>>>
>>>
>> That's the idea; choose a better language, agree it can be used, and then
>> start working on the re-factoring/re-design stuff using it. If we get
>> bogged down at this point with deep design discussions and stuff, instead
>> of just agreeing on a language that volunteers (ex. me) are
>> happy/willing[1] to use to roll-out said re-factorings/re-designs, we'll
>> not move forward at all[2].
>>
>
> As I said, choosing the language first is putting the cart before the
> horse.  As I said in reply to Colomban, I'll start a different thread about
> the way we want to move, lets see where that goes.
>

If you're going to renovate a house, it helps to know whether you're 
going to use lumber or concrete before you start designing the structure :)

I don't think it's putting the cart before the horse, but I agree the 
two things aren't directly related, either one could happen in either 
order, just that if we chose to use Vala before any major 
changes/redesigning, we'd save a lots of pain in the process (to use 
above metaphor, we could save driving nails into concrete, or pouring 
lumber into concrete molds :)

Cheers,
Matthew Brush