Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Nov 2005 17:02 UTC, submitted by Megatux
Gnome "I followed the debate about a successor for the C/C++ combination as the primary language for developing the GNOME core desktop platform very closely last month. There has been discussion about a number of options. What I would like to do on this page is give an overview how a probably less well-known language might be a viable compromise as a C/C++ successor. This language is called Eiffel and exists for over a decade. Eiffel takes the principle of Object-Oriented programming to its extremes and, as a consequence, is a very easy to learn language."
Thread beginning with comment 65361
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.

Member since:

<irony>eiffel, yes, a great idea

lets replace c with a language that maybe 1% of existing gnome maintainers and coders have ever even looked at.</irony>


This argument is flawed. It's circular...they don't know other languages, so we'll stick to C, because they don't know other languages, so we'll stick to C...

In a 20-year horizon, where does that lead you ? To a continuous stream of security bugs.
Now, that, my friend, is a daily fact shoved in everybody's face on a daily basis on security alert lists.

Personally, what I find amazing is how thick some people in the free software community are. They are much less prone to innovation and bold moves then some in the commercial arena. They stick to old ways.

It would be very funny to see free software hackers working with C in the next 10 years (except for kernel and certain system level developments, I don't see why use this glorified assembler everywhere).

To all those proponents of Object-C - this is yet another example of something that was widely rejected on no rational basis and still not widely deployed on the free software community. Except, of course, that those fine people at Apple (and we all gotta recognize the great UNIX they've assembled - with some help from FreeBSD folks, of course) chose Object-C. Also, ObjC is unsafe as C.

The fact is, free software hackers are a bunch of old timers. They're never bold, never really open to innovation. They just stick to their old ways. When they do try to innovate, they reinvent the wheel, badly (Python and Ruby). To be fair, I'm just talking about mainstreamers here. I'm definetely not talking about people who have a vision, like De Icaza. Or other fine group of innovative individuals, like the Perl6 crew and their use of Haskell.

But all this resistance against at least a garbage-collected language is really telling (oh, and when one is chose, often it is Java... Talk about bad design and moving away from free software ethics).

Reply Parent Score: -1

Member since:



This argument is flawed. It's circular...they don't know other languages, so we'll stick to C, because they don't know other languages, so we'll stick to C...

In a 20-year horizon, where does that lead you ? To a continuous stream of security bugs.
Now, that, my friend, is a daily fact shoved in everybody's face on a daily basis on security alert lists.

Personally, what I find amazing is how thick some people in the free software community are. They are much less prone to innovation and bold moves then some in the commercial arena. They stick to old ways.

It would be very funny to see free software hackers working with C in the next 10 years (except for kernel and certain system level developments, I don't see why use this glorified assembler everywhere).

To all those proponents of Object-C - this is yet another example of something that was widely rejected on no rational basis and still not widely deployed on the free software community. Except, of course, that those fine people at Apple (and we all gotta recognize the great UNIX they've assembled - with some help from FreeBSD folks, of course) chose Object-C. Also, ObjC is unsafe as C.

The fact is, free software hackers are a bunch of old timers. They're never bold, never really open to innovation. They just stick to their old ways. When they do try to innovate, they reinvent the wheel, badly (Python and Ruby). To be fair, I'm just talking about mainstreamers here. I'm definetely not talking about people who have a vision, like De Icaza. Or other fine group of innovative individuals, like the Perl6 crew and their use of Haskell.

But all this resistance against at least a garbage-collected language is really telling (oh, and when one is chose, often it is Java... Talk about bad design and moving away from free software ethics).

People use what experienced programmers use. Experienced programmers (generally) only use good languages (C, lisp, python, etc.) or sometimes only good enough languages (C++, Java); the latter tends to be seen more so outside the UNIX world, which is a good thing.

Anyway, I see this discussion as becoming useless. I'm not going to bother checking, but I believe most of my posts have been rated down for the obvious reason (disagreeing with common opinion), which makes me believe my help towards improving common knowledge isn't appreciated. Oh well, your loss.

-bytecoder

Reply Parent Score: 0

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Oh but we like having you here bytecoder (seriously man, register!). You make good points.

This is a topic that I think people don't actively think about until it's presented to them; because most programmers care more about writing it rather than using their pet language.

It should be discussed. It really should. It helps in clearing up a lot of myths too.

Reply Parent Score: 0

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Ok. One error at a time:
1.) It's not that Unix/FOSS programmers are old timers who only use outdated stuff; it's that you kids (which I use lightly as I'm 21) are just early adopters and you write more code than you maintain because your new fangled languages change every year ;) .

"They are much less prone to innovation and bold moves then some in the commercial arena."
Some are, some aren't. No one wants to write code and have to delete it cause the compilers dissappear or rewrite it cause they change dramatically. There is a lot of innovation in the FOSS world. It's actually the best spot for it, because you don't need as much capital to get a project that's gonna fail going! And the best research is destined to fail, because we learn so much from failure (the question is how useful is the knowledge you gained from the failure and the successes).

"It would be very funny to see free software hackers working with C in the next 10 years"
Like they're gonna rewrite stuff we don't have too...

"Also, ObjC is unsafe as C."
Managed code is not safe code. It's just harder to completely bjork yourself with it; but given the extra cushion and comforts I'm sure we'll get lazy enough to find a way.

"reinvent the wheel, badly (Python and Ruby)"
I can't speak for Ruby, but Python is the only language I've used whose inheritance method makes logical sense... (because it's so simplistic) I'm not sure what you have against Python.

"often it is Java"
Duh. Java is the current pet language of Computer Science (as a college department). Every freshman in CS today knows it, and so does every sophomore. It finally caught up to me (I was at the end of the C++ fad) in a later class (luckily I'd learned some on my own beforehand).
Java is an ok language. But yea, politically it makes little sense. And the hardcore freedom guys aren't usually writing Java...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Member since:

you kids just early adopters and you write more code than you maintain because your new fangled languages change every year ;) .

That is a really stupid, stupid comment. Common Lisp, Smalltalk and Eiffel all exist longer than you. Lisp is the second oldest language around still in use, only loosing to Fortran.

See, that's one of the problems with the FLOSS communtiy. People think they can code, or think they understanding programming because they picked up an O'Reilly book on a scripting language.

Reply Parent Score: 0