Hacker News Reader

Comment by kybernetyk | Hacker News Reader

I think they (GNOME) would like to 'lure' more web-centered developers to their platform so that's why they chose JS.

But there's a fault in their thinking IMHO. Web guys are web guys for one reason: They sincerely believe web is the future and better than native desktop software. (For some values of better.)

And then there's the other big group: The native desktop devs who don't think JavaScript is a good choice for a native platform as there's already a big eco system of C/C++ code supporting this platform and why make the extra work of creating JS bindings? (I'm one of these guys - though I don't develop for GNOME.)

So all the GNOME guys do with this decision is to alienate their existing developer base while not really attracting any new devs to their platform.

Personally I think Vala was/is a perfect language for their platform. It's sad they they gave up on that.

View on HN

Agreed with that, although i tried getting into fixing a bug in Geary (a Vala written mail client) and documentation was so scarce, i gave up on it early on, before wasting hours of trying to figure out Vala. It seems to have gotten better, and they added lots of stuff on https://live.gnome.org/Vala/Documentation BUT for example, i'd like to open and write a sqlite database. There even is a vala binding: http://valadoc.org/#!api=sqlite3/Sqlite

It's much harder to figure those out than the usual bindings let's say http://docs.python.org/2/library/sqlite3.html . There is some Database class. But apart from function names no documentation is given at all.

With the python version (and most likely ruby, perl, C, etc.) i can start immediatly, there are examples and everything.

No, why should this be different with the gnome javascript bindings? What happens if there is no binding? You can find lots and lots of bindings for the major script languages and it is easy enough to create one yourself thanks to boost and SWIG and ctypes in python.

> Web guys are web guys for one reason: They sincerely believe web is the future and better than native desktop software.

That's probably only a very small, but very vocal group of developers; those that seem to spend more of their time on writing about their work and their unique insights into how software development should be done (all inferred from their petty front-end dabbling) than actually doing something productive. The vast majority of web developers is developing for the web out of necessity, not because of some grandiose spiritual self-delusion.

I do of course agree with your view that this move will neither attract new developers nor keep existing developers happy.

> The vast majority of web developers is developing for the web out of necessity.

I wouldn't call it necessity. I, for one, like the openness of the web, how it allows me to deploy software to all my users at the same time, the customization, etc. I don't believe it's the holy grail, but it's hardly out of necessity that I develop for it.

"all inferred from their petty front-end dabbling"

Oh my, your horse, it is so high!

I can't speak for everyone else, but as somebody who writes a lot of Web software and very little blogs, I can say that I have plenty of grandiose spiritual self-delusion.

I may not be close to the metal, but I write good software.

I spend far more time writing back-end code (automation, data handling, and services) more than I do front-end code. Most of that code is so that the front end can be nicer. Just because the UI I develop is web-based, doesn't mean I don't know how to write effective code. I do think that JS is an acceptable language for UI development. It is hands down the most widely used language on the planet. Gnome isn't deprecating the other interfaces, it's just that they are steering new developers to the JS interfaces. I do think that the Python guys are having a pretty bad attitude about it though. They had to pick A language as their base for documentation purposes, and I think JS is probably the most pragmatic choice here.

I have to admit that I'm a bit of a JS fan (warts and all), and with NodeJS and MongoDB it's been a far more fluid development experience than other groups of technologies I've had to work with over the past 17 years in software development. It's a pretty decent language to work with.

The web is great and all but there are times when I want something with better desktop workflow integration.

Being able to reuse a chunk of code written for the web and integrate it into gnome could allow for rapid development of lightweight applications for the desktop.

Since the Linux desktop is still a minority platform, anything that makes it easier to port apps there without digging into python/mono/C++ is a win.

In fact with MS adding first class JS support for metro apps there might be an opening for a cross platform library that pops out Metro and Gnome apps.

The whole point of simplified languages like Python is that it isn't digging -- the basics of the language are super-easy to learn, and GNOME's bindigs make it easy to hammer out simple apps in it without fuss. If this move was purely choosing a "lightweight" language, Javascript would have scarcely been considered purely by virtue of its boatload of gotchas.

As for code-reuse, most any web library you could care for has probably been done, better, locally. The only allure of Javascript libraries are that they can be utilized in the browser, and since GNOME JS code relies on GNOME-specific APIs you don't even get that benefit.

GTK already allows you to write cross-platform apps. Javascript isn't going to improve matters there.

You might underestimate the time required to really understand a new language and be as productive in it as you would with something you have used routinely for years. Bare in mind it is not just the language but the whole ecosystem and also that some programmers can adapt to new languages better than others.

From a business point of view you are likely looking at a considerable time sink on an existing developer, or possibly hiring an extra one.

This to develop for a platform with ~1% market share does not necessarily look like a great investment.

Javascript on the desktop allows you to take a bunch of the code that you may have already written for the web or for Metro or for phonegap , add GTK stuff for desktop integration and call it good.

By your logic, the choice of JavaScript would only make sense if the majority of open source developers that GNOME is trying to attract work exclusively (or at least primarily) on web development. They should instead be focusing on the body of talented desktop developers, who on the whole are much better versed in c*, python, or any of the myriad of not-webtastic languages.

I think they are trying to attract web developers here, which makes sense since web developers or hybrid web/desktop devs probably outnumber desktop focused devs right now.

Out of these millions of web developers, regardless of which stack they use Javascript is the one thing they have in common whether they love or hate it.

The lines between web and desktop are blurred to a point anyway, and there are plenty of people out there with experience developing rich applications in JS.

I'm guessing the play here isn't so much to get people to write gnome3 apps from the ground up but to focus on making it possible to give rich web apps first class gnome3 support with the minimum of extra code.

Of course other bindings will continue to exist for those who prefer to use them.

>love or hate it

This move is bad precisely since a lot of web and native developers alike realize that Javascript is a terrible language, and rightly hate writing it. This move serves to alienate all those devs who would rather write in a sane language since desktop development gives them that choice, but instead see GNOME embracing the biggest wart of web development to date.

A language you already know has lower (real or perceived) friction than something you don't. Some people may hate writing Javascript (though some subject themselves to it voluntarily, see node.js) but they still write increasing quantities of it.

The same arguments could be made to PHP or Visual Basic and I remember people saying nasty things about the C++ WinAPI back in the day.

Unless you have the luxury of being Apple you don't really get to say "here's our blessed language , you will learn it" if you want to appeal to the masses.

> blessed language

Granted, hence why the GNOME devs didn't choose Vala. That doesn't explain why they didn't choose a cleaner, easier language, and it certainly doesn't explain why they chose the ass-end of web development.

> already know

The developers that Already Know only Javascript are not, in my opinion, the ones that GNOME will garner the most benefit in attracting.

> The native desktop devs who don't think JavaScript is a good choice for a native platform as there's already a big eco system of C/C++ code supporting

Not only that there is a sane language like Python, there is Vala as well. There are already are good binding for both. GNOME should have marketed the hell of out of Vala, I think.

I think GNOME should have played ball better with Ubuntu. Now they sort of got pushed to the back a bit and they are trying to be "cool" again. But as you said, there is only one latest cool platform and that's the browser.

If I want to write a "app" for GNOME I would write it for Ubuntu's Software Store, I wouldn't write it for GNOME desktop.

You can still use C/C++. The headline and article are misleading. You can also use the other bindings available. However, they can't support everything under the sun.

But then theres PhoneGap and there was WebOS from HP which both are/were pretty popular with developers

Mobile apps are on the rise. Native apps are not.

Web guys are web guys for one reason: They sincerely believe web is the future and better than native desktop software.

Maybe; how does that fit in with PhoneGap?

PhoneGap is about marketing, not about software. For customers it's difficult to find a specific website, but it's easier to find an app in the app store. The devs are still web guys, but thought they will sell more if it looks like a "real app".

I disagree. I used PhoneGap to develop my cloud-storage app so that I don't have to develop the App for 4 different platforms (iOS, Android, Windows, BlackBerry). I believe most devs use PhoneGap to develop real apps, not just to pack their existing websites into native apps.

This makes sense, thank you for the insight :) Wouldn't it have worked as a normal website? Does PhoneGap offer access to native APIs that are not available from web?

It sure does. You can access local storage, camera, GPS, accelerometers... just name it.

To quote the phonegap devs:

http://phonegap.com/2012/05/09/phonegap-beliefs-goals-and-ph...

> The ultimate purpose of PhoneGap is to cease to exist.

You took it out of context totally. Here is the explanation they give:

"Our second goal is not nihilistic but is rather a commitment to standardization of the web as a platform. We believe in a web open to everyone to participate however they will. No locked doors. No walls. The things we do with PhoneGap are directly influenced by the work we see at the W3C, WHATWG, and other research such as Mozilla's WebAPI, BONDI, WAC, Webinos, webOS, Tizen and the like."

Gnome want their own wallet garden.

Charging for software is somehow evil, but wallet gardens with "road tax" are somehow acceptable and people are getting used to them.

Makes sense for them I guess, but I'm going to continue ignoring Gnome as I've been doing since Gnome 3, as they have made very clear I'm "outside of their target demographic".

Where is the wall? It is an open source project.

So is Android.

They are taking steps in that direction.

And you can load any .apk you want on non-crippled versions. So where is the wall?

The wall is the "standard" store. Pretty much like Apple does, because you can also jailbreak an Apple and this doesn't make their ecosystem any less of a walled garden.

They are trying to become a channel just like Ubuntu and like every man and his dog seems to be doing lately. At this point their interests and those of the users don't necessarily align 100% of the time. The same applies to Google, Apple, Ubuntu, and a bunch of others really. If you just want the best possible desktop environment and nothing more, I'm sorry but that's not their priority now and compromises will continue to happen in that regard.

You don't need to "hack" Android to install any app from any source you want. Same goes for Linux distros including Ubuntu. Package managers are not App-store type walled gardens.

It's a "walled garden" instead of just a prison camp, because it's not completely forceful but it's enough deterrent to keep control over the average user which is what moves the economy.

You can, theoretically, find apps outside of the "official" channels and install them. This is not what usually happens and this is not what's encouraged. The success and visibility of apps outside of these channels will always be limited at best, so de-facto they control what people run for the most part, and that's more than enough.

If you mean something different by "walled garden" then maybe we're discussing over semantics. Apple does go a step further though, if you mean that Apple's is the "only" walled garden.

On Debian, the standard packaging system is APT, and it is more work to install software from alternative sources than it is to run `apt-get install`. Is Debian a walled garden? Why or why not?

They will have a "store" of sorts. Just wait and see. And I'm not talking about Debian.

Please answer my question. If package management shares the characteristics of a "store" in that it is the "blessed" and easiest method of obtaining software, what makes it not a walled garden while app stores are?

Debian keeps a minimum imposition policy on their package management. Often they will do the packaging for you even.

In a walled garden, apps are taylored exclusively and you have to do it. They also impose conditions going further than licence and stability. Eventually they ask for a cut of anything you sell over there (which is something Debian hasn't ever done and won't do).

That's where they are going. Stay tuned.

Which steps are they taking?

More integration and more control over the "ecosystem". Standardisation of the development "platform".

Things that used not to belong in Gnome - it used to be a Desktop Environment with no more pretences than that.

Vala does look good.

When it comes to language bindings GObject creates bindings for multiple languages. I know I'm only ever going to use Gtk via python personally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com