Re: [dev] C coded cross-platform youtube video viewer

From: Ryan O’Hara <rninty_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 08:44:54 -0700

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND <sylware_AT_legeek.net> wrote:
> You missed the points.
>
> I don't want "standard" distro integration to be a massive work.
> Now it's near unreasonable to integrate a proper desktop distro
> alone, and it's quite worse from a "SDK" point of view. It's good
> for the business of distro integration: coze a small team, or a
> sole coder cannot "compet" reasonnably. I'm being ironic, but I
> don't think I'm far from the truth.
>
> High level script languages are *many*. And forcibly used in many
> base components. Perl5 in autotools, apt/dpkg (have to re-check),
> ruby for grub2, python for portage, javascript for desktops
> (gnome) and I don't count all the "code generators" SDKs do have.
> Last time I tried to get rid of the autotools from the glib (not
> glibc), I ran into perl5 and python2 (and not 3!!) code
> generators. For libsnd, I discovered a crazy code generator
> written in GNU guile. Of course, each high level scripting
> language has to manage its module dependencies and so on, and
> it's of course of massive kludge... yes nearly *each* of them.
>
> People choosing to code using C with some libs, did choose it
> perfectly knowing that they will sacrifice some comfort compared
> to *insert your favorite high level scripting language* with
> *insert the chosen framework specific to that high level
> scripting language*... (the funniest is PHP with its tons of
> different www frameworks which do not work together but aim at
> the same thing).
>
> That works with crazy complex statically compiled languages like
> c++/java (which is probably the worst)/etc.
>
> Then, yes, I dont want all those things as system dependencies,
> coze I don't want to have to maintain integration on those very
> expensive pieces of software. The hard part, they will have to
> do it: to bundle in their SDK those thingies. It would
> solve only one part of the pb, coze I'm sure they would use build
> systems like cmake or the GNU autotools, then making the removal
> of those for some basic sh scripts or basic makefiles, a real
> nightmare (and I already put forward the issue of code
> generators).

You could:

- not use GNOME
- accept that people will build things with scripting languages and
that you will need them

> ruby for grub2

Haha, what?
Received on Mon May 19 2014 - 17:44:54 CEST