User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?"

Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?"

Posted Feb 6, 2013 10:32 UTC (Wed) by canatella (subscriber, #6745)
Parent article: Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?"

As someone developing and maintaining a javascript application roughly the size of xfwm4 (30K sloc) and multiple C library/application, I can say that Javascript is no a bad language per se, even though any person with enough wisdom could tell you that. You have to know how to work with it and how to organize it, as any other language. It is certainly clearer then Perl (much less magic). Go read the spec:

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/...

You'll see it's a well constructed and thought of language. It has its quirks, but any language has some. Then there is the statically vs dynamically typed language battle which is not only related to javascript. I do like both, you just have to use the right tool for the job. I find that higher level stuff is best written and maintained in dynamic stuff while libs and frameworks needs the constraint of statically typed languages (fyi, I've been also programming in perl, ruby and java).

People complaining about javascript should first learn about it, write a real applications and then express themselves. I'm convinced a _good_ C programmer can also write good and maintainable application in javascript.


(Log in to post comments)

Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?"

Posted Feb 6, 2013 21:31 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I find that higher level stuff is best written and maintained in dynamic stuff while libs and frameworks needs the constraint of statically typed languages (fyi, I've been also programming in perl, ruby and java).

It's not "high-level" is "low-level". It's "few knowledgeable maintainers who really know what they are doing" vs "bunch of random fixes from all around the place brought together by people who've not participated in the initial design".

High-level stuff just more often falls in the first category and libraries more often fall into the second category.

Dynamically-typed languages are nice and fast to program in if you know what you are doing, statically-typed languages provide guarantee that at least the most awful atrocities will be caught right away.

From a fan

Posted Feb 7, 2013 0:01 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

First, I like the language a lot: it has finally brought functional programming to the masses, something that neither Lisp nor Scheme and arguably not even Python managed to do.

But frankly, it lacks a few things. There are no provisions for modularization; nothing to make big modules out of small pieces. There is not even a mechanism to include one file in another, something so basic that even pseudo-languages like XSL manage to do (and that all implementations have to invent on their own). The object-oriented model is pathetic; prototypes just don't cut it. Inheritance is a joke. Callbacks can get hellish quickly; I have heard people rooting for promises, but I am not sure they will solve anything. And so on.

The good side: you can build all of these pieces yourself since the building blocks are so basic. And they can be added to the spec later on (perhaps even decent inheritance?). We can only hope.


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