[Qgis-developer] Some concerns about QGIS on OS X, part 3

[Barry Rowlingson]

2009/2/10 Benjamin Ducke <benjamin.ducke at oxfordarch.co.uk>:
> Go ahead and create all those interfaces if you like. Most people
> I know, however, seem to be quite happy with C++ and Python.
> Any language that does not have an open source implementation or
> is not available for all QGIS-supported OS seems to be a waste of
> time, though.

 +1 from me.

 And now for some comments for the OP:

>> If this were 1999, in the heyday of desktop
>> development

 Wut? 1999 was they heyday of bad web development as I recall. <blink>
tag anyone?

>> whereas Python is, well, a
>> scripting language.

 And all the better for it. Sure, I get less slacking off time:
[http://xkcd.com/303/]  but more python coding time
[http://xkcd.com/353/].

>> Certainly Python has its uses and fTools and the Plugin
>> Installer are excellent examples of how far you can take Python. But there
>> are also many cases where Python is not appropriate and a compiled language
>> is needed. (cf. the performance issues of the Python "Sugar" front-end and
>> Python "activities" (apps) on the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) computers.)

 Most things done by Python in Qgis will be calling the underlying C++
API, and Python speed won't be an issue. Any speed-critical tasks can
easily be developed in Python and rewritten in C and compiled and
distributed as Python modules or native C plugins if necessary.
Knuth's "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of
the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." applies.

>> Again, the objective here is to make adding value to QGIS as painless as
>> possible.

 Writing python plugins is pretty painless - in fact it's a pleasure.
I define pleasure (partly) as something I wish I had more time for.

I've been trying to figure this bit out:

>> Many programmers, particularly new programmers, prefer to use LWOHF (languages without header files).

 "[Citation Needed]" as wikipedia would say. Google doesn't find
anything meaningful for 'LWOHF' and doesn't match quoted "languages
without header files". So either you made this up or the first rule of
LWOHF is 'Don't talk about LWOHF', and the second rule of LWOHF is
'Don't talk about LWOHF'.

Barry