On 22 January 2012 08:17, E. Liddell
<ejlddll@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Darrell Anderson <humanreadable@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Calvin Morrison <
mutantturkey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In other words, I see usefulness from tdebindings.
> >
> > Meh. I see it like this: it is unlikely that any new
> > developer with develop on the trinity platform with Python
> > etc at this stage. Python and other languages are slow
> > anyway. I see weaning off them as a good thing.
to program in. Programmer time is more valuable than machine time these days for
the majority of applications--and for small- to medium-sized programs, no one is going
to notice the difference in execution speed between one and three milliseconds anyway.
A few milliseconds being executed often enough slows you down.
If you love C++ and are good at it, that's fine, but don't try to impose your preferences
on others. In return, I'll spare you my rants on why it's suboptimal. ;)
I do not even like C++.
- Being really good at C++ is like being really good at using rocks to sharpen sticks. -- Thant Tessman
- If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor and when was the
last time you needed one? -- Tom Cargill
- *Oh, definitely. C++ may not be the worst programming language ever
created, but without a doubt it's the worst ever to be taken seriously.
-- Mason Wheeler
- C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung.
> I'm listening if you have ideas. How would a person integrate other languages with TQt3? Rewrite everything
>in C++? Probably not going to happen for many people. If the bindings exist then I see more people being
>interested in adapting or integrating scripts.
I'm 98% sure that kdebindings is an integration package for kdelibs rather than QT3
(or at least, I know of other QT packages for Java. Perl, etc.) In theory, it should be
possible for a programmer who needs this stuff to rewrite a given set of bindings
using the target language's integration system, but my experience with doing things
like that suggests that it would be so painful that most just wouldn't bother.
> Slow compared to what? I'm learning Python right now too. I have learned that Python has a built-in
>quasi compiler, that creates something called byte code. I'm no expert in that kind of jargon, but Python
>will run faster than a pure interpreted language like shell scripts. And everything I have read thus far
>indicates Python is not slow like Java.
Any interpreted language is going to be a bit slower than a compiled one because the interpreter takes
time to start up (and bytecode is still interpreted, it's just interpreted faster).
Not to mention start up, but also the overhead. A simple python script can take 10Mb of memory very easily.
My real quarrel is this:
> tdebindings is one of those packages most people avoid
> building. As a team, if we want to provide a quality
> product, we need to ensure tdebindings will build even when
> we personally don't have a use. :)
HOW CAN WE BUILD A QUALITY PRODUCT IF NOBODY UNDERSTANDS IT. Tim even mentioned he won't mess with it because he doesn't use those languages. I think we have to be kidding ourselves if we are trying to provide a "quality product".