User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Managing GNOME shell extensions

Managing GNOME shell extensions

Posted Sep 22, 2011 2:38 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
In reply to: Managing GNOME shell extensions by alogghe
Parent article: Managing GNOME shell extensions

Yeah, it seems a bit weird to do the whole GObject introspection thing and then not take advantage of that to allow shell extensions in any language. Hopefully this gets fixed in the future.

(Log in to post comments)

Managing GNOME shell extensions

Posted Sep 22, 2011 5:58 UTC (Thu) by kragilkragil2 (guest, #76172) [Link]

Hopefully it doesn't. I use Gnome3 on a tiny 9 inch netbook and I hate running simple little tools that use memory like the integrity of the universe depends on them. Limiting the choices developers have will make sure that all extentions are just JS and everything will stay lean, mean and without bloat. I don't care if I have to wait for extentions a few years longer or if I will never get them. If they are really important they will be done in JS othewise I don't want to be bothered with them. If there are crappy Python, Perl, Ruby, Java (insert bloated runtime crap here) extensions there will be less incentive to develop them in JS, which is already there and fairly lean and fast. Millions are invested every year to make JS fast and efficient (compared to the 5 bucks that were spend the last decade to make CPython or Perl fast..(not counting Unladen Swallow etc.))

The Gnome developers intent Gnome3 to be used on resource limited devices and limiting developers to use the tools that are best for user experience is the best way to success(see iPhone).
Gnome3 focus hopefully is more on user experience than on developer experience. In the long run users are much more important. Even developers will cope with crap if the user experience is great.
It's FOSS so you could do whatever, but I hope the Gnome devs have the foresight to not encourage slow bloat.

Managing GNOME shell extensions

Posted Sep 22, 2011 7:46 UTC (Thu) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

Comparing the top output of the example.js from to an equivalent implementation in Perl using HTTP::Server::Simple:
614m 9512 4416 0:00.05 node example.js
28932 6408 2660 0:00.04 perl

node.js not only uses 1 1/2 times the amount of memory compared to perl, it also needed more CPU time for startup and handling a single request returning "Hello world"

So much for lean and fast compared to bloated Perl runtime crap.

Managing GNOME shell extensions

Posted Sep 22, 2011 8:17 UTC (Thu) by kragilkragil2 (guest, #76172) [Link]

I didn't say that JS was any good, just that there are more resources directed at making it better and that it is _already_running_ and needed in Gnome3. Perl, Python (unless you use some rinter applet), Java etc are not.
So my wish is still just JS extentions nothing else (maybe C and Vala). Everything else is not needed and lets the user experience on resource limited devices deteriorate faster than you get upset when somebody says anything against your favorite scripting language.

Managing GNOME shell extensions

Posted Sep 30, 2011 7:19 UTC (Fri) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]

That isn't a particularly relevant comparison. Gnome Shell already has a JS runtime initialised, so an extension would run within that runtime rather than paying those costs a second time.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds