donaldcallen at gmail.com
Tue Dec 28 17:04:28 EST 2010
2010/12/28 Christian Stimming <stimming at tuhh.de>:
> Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2010 schrieb Jeff Warnica:
>> The question shouldn't be "C++ or not", but "what is the best
>> 2nd/runtime/scripting language?"
>> In 2010/2011, given that Gnucash isn't a game, there is really only one
>> Gjs as the binding toolkit). The low-level infrastructure is there, Gnome
>> 3.0/GnomeShell 1.0 time frame is shorter then Gnucash 2.6, at the very
> As I've written in my other message: Yes. A scripting language might be even
> better than any compiled language such as C++. I would love to see an example
> project which shows how something similar to gnucash can be build using
> an experiment as a starter. But if someone can show to us how something
> this a very good option to choose.
> One minor issue against the language, though: IMHO the syntax sucks. Also, for
> a newcomer it sucks that the syntax tricks you into thinking it were similar
> to Java. It is not, not at all. In reality it is rather much more similar to
> Scheme (heh), but the syntax tries its best to hide this from the programmer.
> Ok, maybe that's just the beginner's learning curve, but currently I don't
> like the language. You are heartly invited to prove me otherwise.
I don't want to start a language war, but you and I disagreed some
time ago about C++, which I think is one of the most awful examples of
programming language mis-design I can think of. This is not to say
that I think your Cutecash experiment was foolishness; I don't. C++
gave you access to primitives in Qt that C and gtk do not and despite
what I consider to be the deficits of C++ as a language, the
combination is almost certainly more powerful than C/gtk. But perhaps
Gnucash can, in the future, have its cake and eat it, too: a
well-designed, easy-to-learn-and-write language that sits on top of
the kind of primitives needed to easily building a better GUI for
gnucash. An earlier message from you mentions Python and Ruby; those
may well be candidates. I have direct experience with Python and think
it's very well done (language, documentation, richness of the library
is all there). I don't know Ruby, but I've heard good things about it,
but I'm not in a position to comment further. I also have direct
experience with C++ over a number of years and you already know my
thoughts about it.
I would also second your open-ness to an interpreted language. Today's
hardware is so fast that interpreted languages can deliver GUI
performance that is compatible with human reaction times and desire
for instant gratification.
it didn't strike me as a horror show. As for its similarity to Scheme,
that seems like a pretty big stretch, but if it's true, I see that as
a feature, not a bug :-)
> Best Regards,
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
More information about the gnucash-devel