On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:52 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 00:03:33 -0500 Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > >> Jose Gonzalez wrote: >> > Gustavo wrote: >> >> Since Edje is target at designers (ie: colors are not premul, etc), I >> >> think we should go with JS since most designers know it somehow, even >> >> if they don't really know, they think they do and they will not be >> >> afraid of trying it... Also, many systems use it as scripting >> >> language, comes to mind Photoshop, Qt-based applications and it's the >> >> official language of KDE for exactly that reason. I remember INdT >> >> designers hacking some Photoshop scripts just because they knew bits >> >> of JS from web development. >> >> >> >> Lua is good, yes, but I think that going with a more widespread >> >> language is the way to go. >> >> >> > >> > Indeed. Javascript has enourmous widespread use on the web, very >> > well knonwn >> > to designers, very close to flash's actionscript, and runtimes for it >> > are becoming >> > faster. It should be a verious consideration. >> >> Just wanted to note that ActionScript is actually based on ECMAScript >> afaik which is what JS is based on and thus why they are so similar. > > in all honesty - javascript is not going to make anything a lot better... as > the only thing we will get is language constructs - the massive pool of > knowledge on js is its use WITH www objects and with the api and event > facilities a browser provides. this will not be the same. this bit will be > different, thus all we get is syntax and core language constructs (i.e. C > without even libc). so aqs such the usefulness of such a syntax is not so much > - as frankly - lua, java, javascript, c, c++ all inherit vastly similar core > syntax and constructs. if we were doing lisp or haskel or prolog... i'd say we > are making life hard for designers. even python diverges much more than > lua/c/c+ > +/perl/js etc. etc. - so we're in ballpark already. remember they likely also > have to learn all of edje/edc and the internal edje api we expose anyway... so > lanugage i think is a moot point here beyond overall core syntax style - and > if > it's familiar and easy. :)
As I mentioned in other mails, I strongly disagree. Users, specially non-hackers (ie: designers, the target audience) are usually very reluctant to learn a "new programming language". It's more psycological than technical, as you said the actual work will be almost the same for them, however their willingness to do so will be heavily impacted by such. As you said, like in the C without libC, if you present hackers that know C with a machine with C w/o libC or another language, they'll go with C because they think they know it more and thus will be easier. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
