Are you talking about the "I was watching the grass grow the other day" mail that in fact translated to "I was reading the postings on kde-devel the other day" ? I think that was what he was refering to since he obviously got inspired by the ideas discussed there one week earlier.
I would like to add what Mr. Torvalds once said. This might let some people cool down.
> Author: Linus Torvalds > Email: torvalds@transmeta.com > Date: 1998/11/22 > Forums: comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.x > > Peter A. Koren wrote: >> >> If I read the GNOME folks correctly, KDE essentially locks >> you in to C++, while GNOME is architected to easily allow >> other languages to be used for development under GNOME/GTK. >> Is this really true? If so, the case favoring GNOME over KDE >> would be compelling. > > I don't see why language is an issue at all. > > The kernel is coded in C, and I don't export any scheme or perl bindings > for it. You have to code in C (or in assembly if you really really feel > like it and want to punish yourself for some bad deed you have done) in > order to write kernel code. > > Having one primary language has advantages: less confusion, and less > overhead to maintain language-level abstractions. > > Haviung one primary langauge has it's disadvantages too: you have to use > that language. > > I'm not saying that C++ is the only language to use, I'm just saying > that you have to balance the advantages against the disadvantages. It > all depends on what you want to do - saying that the language issue is > "compelling" just doesn't make sense at all. It could be compelling in > either way, and as such the compulsion isn't very real, is it? [demands lean programing in both projects] > Being too generic (in languages or features or design) often has its own > set of serious downsides. Never _ever_ forget that. > > Linus
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about the "I was watching the grass grow the other day" mail that in fact translated to "I was reading the postings on kde-devel the other day" ?
I think that was what he was refering to since he obviously got inspired by the ideas discussed there one week earlier.
Harri
I would like to add what Mr. Torvalds once said. This might let some people cool down.
> Author: Linus Torvalds
> Email: torvalds@transmeta.com
> Date: 1998/11/22
> Forums: comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.x
>
> Peter A. Koren wrote:
>>
>> If I read the GNOME folks correctly, KDE essentially locks
>> you in to C++, while GNOME is architected to easily allow
>> other languages to be used for development under GNOME/GTK.
>> Is this really true? If so, the case favoring GNOME over KDE
>> would be compelling.
>
> I don't see why language is an issue at all.
>
> The kernel is coded in C, and I don't export any scheme or perl bindings
> for it. You have to code in C (or in assembly if you really really feel
> like it and want to punish yourself for some bad deed you have done) in
> order to write kernel code.
>
> Having one primary language has advantages: less confusion, and less
> overhead to maintain language-level abstractions.
>
> Haviung one primary langauge has it's disadvantages too: you have to use
> that language.
>
> I'm not saying that C++ is the only language to use, I'm just saying
> that you have to balance the advantages against the disadvantages. It
> all depends on what you want to do - saying that the language issue is
> "compelling" just doesn't make sense at all. It could be compelling in
> either way, and as such the compulsion isn't very real, is it?
[demands lean programing in both projects]
> Being too generic (in languages or features or design) often has its own
> set of serious downsides. Never _ever_ forget that.
>
> Linus