[Sugar-devel] python hulahop article

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On 7/27/09, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 17:28, Luke Kenneth Casson
>  Leighton<lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>  > On 7/27/09, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
>  >> XPCOM is self-deprecating. It's excessively costly for both callers and
>  >> implementors of its interfaces, both in runtime overhead and in
>  >> expressiveness restrictions.
>  >
>  >  i'd say that that's a price paid for the incredible power and
>  > flexibility of what it brings, but hey, nobody said it would be easy
>  > :)   i'm dead impressed that you got XPCOM right, and that it works as
>  > expected, by providing seamless inter-language communication - and now
>  > am a bit puzzled that it's to be deprecated.
>
>
> Isn't that the same that GObject Introspection brings? You code in
>  whatever language that produces a .so with some metadata, then you can
>  call it from any language with bindings for g-o-i.

 ah _ha_ - an assumption is ".so" :)  xpcom and DCOM you don't need
the .so, you just "register" the code with the infrastructure, and it
gets called (on demand, by a caller).  in c and c++ cases, that's a
.so, but in the dynamic-language cases, it's definitely not the case.

 but to be honest i need to look up gobject introspection before
answering, and i'm glad that you've brought it to my attention - i'm
supposed to know about these things :)

 l.