CNI for C

Wed Apr 7 20:33:00 GMT 2004

On Wed, 2004年04月07日 at 21:45, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I hear conflicting stories about this stuff. It would be nice to have
> more clarity from the Gnome community about what they really want...

The fact that Mono exists is proof that they don't really think that
full compatibility is important. They will never be able to provide
everything .Net provides, will always be behind and some technology will
simply be 100% patented or tied to Windows.
> For instance, if compatibility with Sun's Java doesn't matter, then by
> all means let us implement what is desirable. This might mean writing
> some simpler way to make native bindings a la PInvoke (we already have

If it really is as little work as it sounds to be, by all means get it
in there!!
> all the needed low-level technology, it is really just a matter of
> building some bits into the compiler and runtime). This could even
> extend as far as adding features to the language that are very
> desirable (the GUI hackers seem to like delegates quite a bit, we
> could add those in some backward-compatible way).

I honestly think that's a good idea.
> On the other hand, Sun is a stakeholder in Gnome. Perhaps they will
> reject a modified Java. But wouldn't they reject .NET on the same
> basis?

I think Sun is just a player in the field here. The fact that they
haven't been integrating and pushing their own VM more for integration
in Gnome with decent bindings and so on, makes me doubt about the actual
interest.
> Geert> What I do know is that the easy C integration is making Mono and C#
> Geert> gaining more and more momentum, while a perfectly functional
> Geert> free-from-patents technology exist with GCJ. As I see it, easy
> Geert> integration with C is a minor addition to what is already a very stable
> Geert> and comprehensive platform.
>> Yes, I think we've been quite bad at pushing our technology. Are gcj
> and Java perfect? No, of course not. But I think they are attractive

I fully agree. Not enough people are knowledgeable about the
possibilities and maturity of GCJ. 
> along many axes: there is a lot of free Java code, including
> development environments and other "big" things; gcj is quite mature,
> has good performance, and is not only extremely portable but in fact
> very widely ported.

> So, how can we get the word out more effectively? I don't know. I
> think we need some evangelists in the Gnome world (and other

I'm trying the best I can ;-) But I'm not really anchored in the Gnome
community, I just know some major players. This is an interesting blog
entry to consider: http://micke.hallendal.net/archives/000141.html
> communities) to help out. And I think we need to listen to those

I think we need a very easy solution quickly and start writing some real
applications with it. Acceptance will follow.
> folks when they talk about what it is they need.

I think we should look at what has happened in the past. The Gnome
community had a lot of remarks about Mono and C# initially, but now that
it's out and they see the difference of using a managed language instead
of plain C they seem to adopt it easily. The people that are still
resilient either see the deficiencies of the C# language in itself,
realize the immaturity of the software solution or understand the
potential patent issues. Java has a track-record of FUD and bad
publicity which makes a lot of die-hard C doubt. I think something needs
to be presented that has good performance and is extremely easy to use.
You can rest assured that it will be adopted. It will be available to
anyone anyway since gcc ships on virtually every linux distribution.
> Considerations like these are why I think java-gnome is such an
> important project. Other bindings would also be useful, to make it
> easier to write Gnome-ish applications.

I agree, it's one of the cornerstones of what will shape the desktop
landscape on linux in the near future.
-- 
Geert Bevin Uwyn bvba
"Use what you need" Rue Victor Cuvelier 57
http://www.uwyn.com 7190 Ecaussinnes
gbevin[remove] at uwyn dot com Tel +32 67 78 04 06
PGP Fingerprint : 4E21 6399 CD9E A384 6619 719A C8F4 D40D 309F D6A9
Public PGP key : available at servers pgp.mit.edu, wwwkeys.pgp.net