On Sunday 30 March 2008, Alexander Dymo wrote:
Because everyone here is using the word scripting language
that automatically implies somewhat condescending point of view on
Python, Ruby and any similar languages.
Sorry, in the beginning I couldn't find the good word, but in fact I
meant
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 3:38 AM, Aaron J. Seigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with what you have said, Alex. I think getting concerned over the use
of the term scripting language is a bit unnecessary, it's just a commonly
used term is all.
Sure :) I just wanted to stress my point that
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Andras Mantia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, in the beginning I couldn't find the good word, but in fact I
meant interpreted languages,
Well, actually I never stress the fact Ruby or Python are interpreted.
It doesn't matter. Currently the best
Howdy,
So we seem to have reached consensus on a policy (enclosed below).
Now I think we should take on the task of pre-approving a couple
of non-C++ languages, thereby giving the green light to anyone
thinking about using one of them = Chicken Lays Egg.
Nominations anyone?
We really need
On 30.03.08 08:19:33, Allen Winter wrote:
Howdy,
So we seem to have reached consensus on a policy (enclosed below).
Now I think we should take on the task of pre-approving a couple
of non-C++ languages, thereby giving the green light to anyone
thinking about using one of them = Chicken
On 30.03.08 17:35:54, Simon Edwards wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 30.03.08 08:19:33, Allen Winter wrote:
I'm not a kdebindings person, but I did try both korundum (ruby) and
I know PyQt/PyKDE for quite some time.
Both have one drawback:
- PyQt/PyKDE are both mostly developed in
On Sunday 30 March 2008, Mark Constable wrote:
On 2008-03-30 10:38, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
That's true of every single dependency we have in KDE. Hardly anybody
bats an eye when we pull in Yet Another Library, so doing so now is
really hypocritical.
Obviously, the difference is that the
On Sunday 30 March 2008, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
But even though both bindings are in quite good shape - AFAIK and both
languages should be pre-approved.
+1 for python and ruby.
the fact that they've been around for some years now and apps built with them
work well gives me enough confidence
On Sunday 30 March 2008 15:11:55 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Sunday 30 March 2008, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
But even though both bindings are in quite good shape - AFAIK and both
languages should be pre-approved.
+1 for python and ruby.
+1 for python and ruby
+1 for perl, when the bindings
+1 for PHP ... h in fact no ;-)
But agree with Python and Ruby, and why not Perl (no experience on it)
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Allen Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 30 March 2008 15:11:55 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Sunday 30 March 2008, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
But
10 matches
Mail list logo
