logicaldesktop-general

[Logicaldesktop-general] Technology switch?

[Maurizio C. <seg...@ti...>]

I am seriously considering rewriting the app in Nemerle + Mono + Gtksharp + 
gtkhtml-sharp. This allows us to integrate into gnome-panel, have integrated 
web browsing, write our own ListBox widget, all without touching C++ or C. 
The nemerle code would be cleaner and faster than python.

The problem is I can't write the MyListBox widget in gtk. It is just too 
difficult for me; with Qt it was very easy. Maybe in the future... or if 
someone helps. :-)

Mau

Re: [Logicaldesktop-general] Technology switch?

[Lawrence O. <l.o...@gm...>]

> I am seriously considering rewriting the app in Nemerle + Mono + Gtksharp +
> gtkhtml-sharp.
>This allows us to integrate into gnome-panel, have integrated
> web browsing, write our own ListBox widget, all without touching C++ or C.
> The nemerle code would be cleaner and faster than python.

Mmm using Mono and so on it's cool but why Nemerle? Do you prefer
functional languages? (I know the answer :P). Anyway, why you think it
will be "faster" ?

Re: [Logicaldesktop-general] Technology switch?

[Maurizio C. <seg...@ti...>]

On Saturday 10 July 2004 13:25, Lawrence Oluyede wrote:
> > I am seriously considering rewriting the app in Nemerle + Mono + Gtksharp
> > + gtkhtml-sharp.
> >This allows us to integrate into gnome-panel, have integrated
> > web browsing, write our own ListBox widget, all without touching C++ or
> > C. The nemerle code would be cleaner and faster than python.
>
> Mmm using Mono and so on it's cool but why Nemerle? Do you prefer
> functional languages? (I know the answer :P). 

Well, functional languages are easier to read IMO. They are more declarative. 
You have a better comprehension of how the data is transformed.

> Anyway, why you think it will be "faster" ?

First of all, we don't need much speed, it's already ok, except very long 
folders. Anyway, python is dynamically typed, so, even if compiled, must do 
more checks than mono at runtime. The price you pay for in mono for the 
additional execution speed is that you spend more time coding: you have to 
declare the types of your variables (yes, type inference is a complete farce 
IMO).

Mau

Re: [Logicaldesktop-general] Technology switch?

[Lawrence O. <l.o...@gm...>]

> Well, functional languages are easier to read IMO. They are more declarative.
> You have a better comprehension of how the data is transformed.

Easier only if you have ever used a functional programming language
before in a serious way (I don't). Anyway, for the final user it
doesn't matter

> First of all, we don't need much speed, it's already ok, except very long
> folders. Anyway, python is dynamically typed, so, even if compiled, must do
> more checks than mono at runtime. 

Python is strongly and dinamically typed so there's not a difference
a-priori, cause the speedness of a program doesn't depend only on
that... Anyway it's up to you :)

Re: [Logicaldesktop-general] Technology switch?

[Maurizio C. <seg...@ti...>]

On Sunday 11 July 2004 01:26, Lawrence Oluyede wrote:
> > Well, functional languages are easier to read IMO. They are more
> > declarative. You have a better comprehension of how the data is
> > transformed.
>
> Easier only if you have ever used a functional programming language
> before in a serious way (I don't). Anyway, for the final user it
> doesn't matter

You 're right...
>
> > First of all, we don't need much speed, it's already ok, except very long
> > folders. Anyway, python is dynamically typed, so, even if compiled, must
> > do more checks than mono at runtime.
>
> Python is strongly and dinamically typed so there's not a difference
> a-priori,

Well, Python must check the type at runtime, mono must not. Anyway the impact 
of this may be irrelevant, if that's what you mean.

> cause the speedness of a program doesn't depend only on 
> that...  Anyway it's up to you :) 

For fun, maybe I'll add an independent version which uses mono.

Maybe :-)

Mau