On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Darrell Anderson <humanreadable@...> wrote:

>Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@...> wrote:

> > In other words, I see usefulness from tdebindings.
> > 
> > Meh. I see it like this: it is unlikely that any new
> > developer with develop on the trinity platform with Python
> > etc at this stage. Python and other languages are slow
> > anyway. I see weaning off them as a good thing.

Unless you're already good at C++, just about any other language is going to be faster
to program in.  Programmer time is more valuable than machine time these days for
the majority of applications--and for small- to medium-sized programs, no one is going
to notice the difference in execution speed between one and three milliseconds anyway.

If you love C++ and are good at it, that's fine, but don't try to impose your preferences
on others.  In return, I'll spare you my rants on why it's suboptimal. ;)

> I'm listening if you have ideas. How would a person integrate other languages with TQt3? Rewrite everything 
>in C++? Probably not going to happen for many people. If the bindings exist then I see more people being 
>interested in adapting or integrating scripts.

I'm 98% sure that kdebindings is an integration package for kdelibs rather than QT3
(or at least, I know of other QT packages for Java. Perl, etc.)  In theory, it should be
possible for a programmer who needs this stuff to rewrite a given set of bindings
using the target language's integration system, but my experience with doing things
like that suggests that it would be so painful that most just wouldn't bother.
 
> Slow compared to what? I'm learning Python right now too. I have learned that Python has a built-in 
>quasi compiler, that creates something called byte code. I'm no expert in that kind of jargon, but Python 
>will run faster than a pure interpreted language like shell scripts. And everything I have read thus far 
>indicates Python is not slow like Java.

Any interpreted language is going to be a bit slower than a compiled one because the interpreter takes
time to start up (and bytecode is still interpreted, it's just interpreted faster).
 
> I am trying to use Deskzilla (Java). Like trying to ask an old dog on a hot summer day to move across 
>the porch. Just slow. I hope down the road we find time to get kbugbuster rolling again. :)

Java is in a weird sort of situation:  after the interpreter startup lag is discounted, the core of the
language actually benchmarks quite well in terms of speed (better than compiled Pascal for the 
most part, and almost competitive with C/C++), but several of the libraries are abysmally slow.  
Unfortunately, Swing, the default GUI library, is one of those (and the default file IO and 
networking packages are no great shakes either).  Result:  a lot of very slow interactive Java 
programs, and an unfairly bad reputation for the language.  (It also eats a lot of memory, but
that's another story.)

That doesn't help you with Deskzilla unless you can convince its maintainers to rewrite its
GUI portion using, say, Eclipse's SWT, though.