Re: Language bindings on developer.gnome.org

On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 03:07, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 01:51, Curtis C. Hovey wrote:
> [snip]
> > Complete binding don't exist anymore (well may never had). 
> > Here's the rub.  Gnome claims to be language agnostic--it's one of the
> > selling points when compared to KDE--but it doesn't really live up to
> > that.  The developers who have worked very hard on gtkmm, Python-gnome,
> > Ruby-GNOME2, Inti C++, and GTK2-Perl are to be commended.  With GNOME
> > doing 6 month releases, they can barely keep up.
> 
> gtkmm and pygtk are doing well. With such a large number of bindings, a
> variation in quality and activity is to be expected. As I'm sure you
> understand, GNOME can not demand anything from bindings developers.

Yes I do understand.  I never thought compete was 100% matching
bindings.  I think a simple measure of some, many, most is appropriate. 
I think a few sentence describing the strength of a language's bindings
provides the best information for a developer before following the link
to the binding's homepage.

> [snip]
> > But we need to communicate that just because a developer
> > can make an app using a GTK2 binding doesn't mean they are making a
> > GNOME2 app.
> 
> As far as I can tell, GTK+ will soon be almost all they need, because
> APIs are being moved down into it. GConf and libglade will also be quite
> essential, but libgnomeui and bonobo will mostly fade away unless you
> are doing component stuff. Therefore it will be much easier to provide
> complete bindings. At the moment we can not even describe what people
> should use in C.

I'm very happy to see the gnome widget/gui move down into GTK,
libgnomeui doesn't have a very strong identity.  I personally think
GConf and libglade are essential to a good GNOME2 app, but I'm not
willing to be stoned alive for saying.

I think my mistake in this undertaking was what I wanted was a bindings
list and "GNOME best practices" doc, and I was trying to both at the
same time.  Best practice is for another discussion.

> >   I would like a small table that indicates what libs are
> > crucial for integrating with the desktop, and what language provide
> > that, but I may be asking for too much. The issue of what really
> > constitutes a GNOME2 app is a desktop-devel discussion.
> 
> Sure, that could be useful, but IMHO it's a question that will not have
> an answer until GTK+ 2.4 and maybe GNOME 2.6. The C API is confused, but
> it's settling down.

I don't think a gnome bindings list needs to be perfect to start.  It
should give the developer a clue and, provide an opportunity to explore
their options.  As the API firms up, so to can the general ratings of
completeness--and as GNOME 2 (major) is API compatabile with it's
minors, binding ratings will rise.  I suspect though, that the bindings
we have now will be the bindings we have in GNOME3. About two dozen
1.2/4 bindings exists, created as experiments.  Those that made it 2.0
did so because the community was strong and te binding proved useful.  

Editing the bindings page shouldn't be more that a review every other
month.  Ratings might change as substantial API's are added, but more
often a note in the languages summary will be made about refinements.  I
not sure a table is needed given the few GNOME2 bindings that exist now.

-- 
__C U R T I S  C.  H O V E Y____________________
[email protected]
Guilty of stealing everything I am.