News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on GNOME Shell and Mutter. Parent comment

Re:GNOME Shell and Mutter by VMG on Friday February 01, 2019 @02:04AM (#19052220)
Wait what? There are hundreds of popular gnome extensions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNOME Shell and Mutter by pjmlp on Friday February 01, 2019 @03:54AM (#19052666)
With various degrees of CPU hogging.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNOME Shell and Mutter by VMG on Friday February 01, 2019 @04:02AM (#19052681)
which programming language has a similar popularity and would exhibit less CPU hogging?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNOME Shell and Mutter by pjmlp on Friday February 01, 2019 @05:15AM (#19053011)
If you want specific examples, C and C++ to start with, as the old GNOME plugins used to be written on, before they went JavaScript crazy with the UI.

And doesn't need to be C or C++, anything else that compiles to native code AOT would do as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNOME Shell and Mutter by VMG on Friday February 01, 2019 @05:47AM (#19053155)
Neither C or C++ have the same developer reach or safety.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GNOME Shell and Mutter by pjmlp on Friday February 01, 2019 @06:41AM (#19053336)
Developer reach in what sense?

Script kiddies writting GNOME extensiosn with 100% CPU use and memory leaks?

As for safety, yes C++ and specially C are quite good at memory corruption bugs. Which I am quite aware, if you look at my comments history.

Exactly because of that I took care to expressly mention "And doesn't need to be C or C++, anything else that compiles to native code AOT would do as well.".

And while JavaScript might be safe in terms of memory corruption issues, there are enough WAT opportunities in the language.

[ Parent | on HN ]