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 551467
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not far enough
by Soulbender on Tue 5th Feb 2013 01:41 UTC 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

RE[3]: Not far enough
by pandronic on Tue 5th Feb 2013 07:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Not far enough"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

As someone with little experience in other languages, I'm genuinely curious ... what are the warts?

Reply Parent Score: 2