GNOME To Use JavaScript For New User Programs

[kigurai]

Craziness if you ask me. It isn't that developers don't need a good scripting type language, just that JavaScript is far from ideal. Personally Python would be a good solution for app development.

While I too prefer Python over JS (though I have honestly not used the latter for desktop applications) I see why they chose it. Gnome-Shell already allows (requires?) extensions to be written in javascript, so extending this to be the preferred language for other applications seems logical.

[jalyst]

In any event this thread highlights a big issue with Linux, both KDE and Gnome are terrible development environments.

Maybe on the desktop, but in mobile/embedded at least Qt/QML etc. is doing quite well, looks like GNOME is finally getting on that train too* with JS, alongside FFOS & others.
Considering bindings do exist & are fairly well maintained, I would've preferred to have seen them come on-board w/Qt/QML, BUT given political clashes in the past I half-expected that to not happen, sadly.
That of course is only part of the equation, they are way more entrenched in the js side of things, so the upheaval isn't exactly easy...

*in a more coordinated/consolidated way then ever before

[Akka]

I really don't see a big difference from KDE. I get the impression kde propagate for java script/QML int the gui more and more and javascript or c++ in the other layer. To me it's look like the full c++ apps is destined to disappear also on kde. Plasma2 is supposed to be mostly in qml and javascript and also kwin use qml or javascript for animation and behavioral scripting.
The underlying code in the libs is c++ just as its c on gnome.

[wizard69]

Craziness if you ask me. It isn't that developers don't need a good scripting type language, just that JavaScript is far from ideal. Personally Python would be a good solution for app development.

In any event this thread highlights a big issue with Linux, both KDE and Gnome are terrible development environments. People are starting to realize this and maybe that is why JavaScript is being promoted. However this more or less implies that Gnome needs to be rethought.

Because anyone suggesting that GNOME should give up all the work and expertise they already have in GTK and switch to Qt is either trolling, or out of touch with reality.

As a side note: I really like Qt. For a cross platform project I'd choose that over GTK any day.

Ok, I agree. I didn't take expertise into account.

[cbamber85]

What would stop you from statically linking Qt to your program? It's licenced under LGPL 2.1 or later after all. You can also make modifications to it but you just have to release them like the licence requires.

You're right, I was thinking from the point of view of proprietary software - where statically linking without a commercial license is not allowed.

[Teho]

I did miss one caveat, you can't statically link to the Qt libraries without a commercial license. In short: You can use Qt libraries for your software and license your software anyway you like, without paying a penny to Digia, as long as you dynamically link to unadulterated Qt libraries.

What would stop you from statically linking Qt to your program? It's licenced under LGPL 2.1 or later after all. You can also make modifications to it but you just have to release them like the licence requires.

The GNU Lesser General Public License or LGPL (formerly the GNU Library General Public License) is a free software license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The LGPL allows developers and companies to use and integrate LGPL software into their own (even proprietary) software without being required (by the terms of a strong copyleft) to release the source code of their own software-parts. Merely the LGPL software-parts need to be modifiable by end-users (via source code availability): therefore, in the case of proprietary software, the LGPL-parts are usually used in the form of a shared library (e.g. DLL), so that there is a clear separation between the proprietary parts and open source LGPL parts.

[cbamber85]

Really? O_o
Somebody should really make some FAQ for Qt and its commercial use...

Like here? I don't think they could have made it more obvious... I did miss one caveat, you can't statically link to the Qt libraries without a commercial license.

In short: You can use Qt libraries for your software and license your software anyway you like, without paying a penny to Digia, as long as you dynamically link to unadulterated Qt libraries.

[Redi44]

You only need to pay for Qt if you are modifying the source code and have no intention of pushing your changes upstream (and then trying to redistribute it obviously).

Really? O_o
Somebody should really make some FAQ for Qt and its commercial use...

[cbamber85]

don't project like Desura use GTK+ because with Qt they would need to pay for it since they make money from the SW?

You only need to pay for Qt if you are modifying the source code and have no intention of pushing your changes upstream (and then trying to redistribute it obviously).