Hey, a quick note on the subject, I made a haphazard attempt at this rewrite some time ago, and faced the same issue you have now. I think the deciding factor would be your personal experience with the languages. If you have never really worked with C, but have used python, I would think that a well designed and well written python plugin is much better than a haphazard 'My First C' program. The second concern/thought is that a lot of users will leave their browsers open for hours (if not days) at a time, I'm not 100% sure if this applies in the plugin context, but a GC system probably offers some safety net for memory use.
Just a quick $0.02, Kevin Kubasik -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Shaw Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:49 AM To: Tao Fei Cc: dashboard-hackers@gnome.org Subject: Re: GSoc Weekly Report (Browser Extension Rewrite) Hi, On 7/14/07, Tao Fei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've noticed that Epiphany can be written in C or in Python. The old > extension is written in C. I'm wondering whether it is acceptable if I > write the extension in python ? It's a possibility, although I'm not crazy about adding a Python dependency to Beagle (not libbeagle, which already has an optional Python dep for the bindings). It's probably not unreasonable to assume that anyone with Epiphany installed will also have Python, however. Joe _______________________________________________ Dashboard-hackers mailing list Dashboard-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dashboard-hackers
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Dashboard-hackers mailing list Dashboard-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dashboard-hackers
