Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Feb 2013 18:41 UTC
Gnome "At the GNOME Developer Experience Hackfest in Brussels, the GNOME developer community has tackled the problem of specifying a canonical development language for writing applications for the GNOME desktop. According to a blog post by Collabora engineer and GNOME developer Travis Reitter, members of the GNOME team are often asked what tools should be used when writing an application for the desktop environment and, up until now, there has been no definitive answer. The team has now apparently decided to standardise on JavaScript for user-facing applications while still recommending C as the language to write system libraries in." Discuss.
Thread beginning with comment 551380
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not far enough
by pooo on Mon 4th Feb 2013 19:48 UTC
pooo
Member since:
2006-04-22

This is good news! Standardizing around a dynamic language will yield great improvements and increase developer involvement (hopefully).

But you still need to go further and just adopt HTML/CSS as the markup for defining UI. The existing gnome stuff is just shite. Really bad and old. HTML/CSS kills it in every way. Someone mentioned QML but why use QML? HTML/CSS is superior, more people know it so more developers will get involved.

If you want desktop consistency, provide templates, default css, and drop in widgets (as now, but in HTML/CSS).

Developing in gnome currently sucks. I would never consider making a gnome desktop app. I would always make a standalone node app with a web interface because it is just so much easier, robust, and strangely, FASTER.

It blows my mind how slow so many simple gnome features are, like starting up the settings. WTF?

Edited 2013-02-04 19:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not far enough
by YEPHENAS on Mon 4th Feb 2013 20:02 in reply to "Not far enough"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

HTML/CSS is not superior to Clutter/CSS. Maybe one day with a good WebGL scene graph library, but not yet.

Edited 2013-02-04 20:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not far enough
by pooo on Tue 5th Feb 2013 03:18 in reply to "RE: Not far enough"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

It is less powerful if you are talking big features and only if you exclude WebGL, and why would you do that?

For little details, polish, maturity, tools, and existing developer base, HTML/CSS crushes Clutter/CSS.

In any case, there is no reason you can't have your cake and eat it to. I'm not suggesting that they build gnome out of standards compliant web widgets. You can go nuts extending things and including custom, gnome-only widgets.

But the fundamental language for expressing things should HTML/CSS + DOM for traversal, manipulation and introspection. Drop jQuery into the mix and you have a powerful app development combo that no existing gnome (or Qt) tech can touch. And when I say powerful I don't mean in terms of some specific feature, I just mean 95% of all potential apps can be built 50% faster, 2X more robustly by 10X more people.

Edited 2013-02-05 03:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Not far enough
by Soulbender on Tue 5th Feb 2013 01:41 in reply to "Not far enough"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Standardizing around a dynamic language will yield great improvements and increase developer involvement (hopefully).


Sure, I just wish they hand't standardised on the most awkward and badly designed language next to PHP.
(although admittedly JS has nifty object model)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Not far enough
by pooo on Tue 5th Feb 2013 03:16 in reply to "RE: Not far enough"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

JS is a pretty language with warts, not a fundamentally ugly language. Warts are easily cover up with a little makeup or just ignored. If you use JS a lot you'll find it is actually an extremely expressive language, much more so than other prettier languages and certainly many times more expressive than C/C++ (or PHP) for application development. You never end up spending any thought or energy on these nasty details once you learn to avoid them.

It also is as powerful a language as more popular dynamic peers like Ruby or Python and as you mention is't object model is very interesting and powerful, more akin to Lisp than Ruby.

Anyway, nowadays you can always use Coffeescript if you really can't stomach JS in the buff. I personally find JS to be quite tasty.

Reply Parent Score: 4