I've been following the development since the very start, and the more it matures, the more I like it.
Nothing can beat carefully hand-crafted GObject code, of course, but this way you can start things simple and start optimizing when the need really arises.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-19 17:02
what
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-19 17:12
"Vala" is portuguese for "ditch".
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-19 17:33
"Vala" is toki poni for "get the fuck out of my /prog/ you soft headed gtk programmer."
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-19 17:35
>>4
Because using Vala is way worse than coding a GTK+ app in, say, Python, amirite?
I've been working on a project using Vala. It's a lot nicer when you use any GTK widgets because seriously, a lot of that stuff is a pain in the ass in plain C.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-19 19:30
THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE C FOR GUIS; IT'S BECAUSE IT WASN'T MADE FOR GUIS, YOU MASSIVE DICKS, IT WAS MADE FOR FUCKING KERNELS AND DEVICE DRIVERS. FUCK.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-20 0:45
>>8
Haskell was initially written specifically for GUIs.
THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE HASKELL FOR ANYTHING USEFUL; IT'S BECAUSE IT WASN'T MADE FOR ANYTHING USEFUL, YOU MASSIVE DICKS, IT WAS MADE FOR FUCKING FACTORIALS AND FIBONACCI NUMBERS. FUCK.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-20 4:51
>>11 /prog/'s entire purpose for existence has been to bring this post to the world. /prog/ is now complete. It'd been a good run.
>>12
Now, now, there you go again, Guido, hating something just because can't understand it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-20 13:25
>>15 ┎┰─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
┃┃ ,_,_ This post does not cite any references or sources. │
┃┃ \ \?\ Please help improve this post by adding citations to reliable │
┃┃ '='=` sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. │
┖┸─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
>>16 http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196 So now reduce(). This is actually the one I've always hated most, because, apart from a few examples involving + or *, almost every time I see a reduce() call with a non-trivial function argument, I need to grab pen and paper to diagram what's actually being fed into that function before I understand what the reduce() is supposed to do. So in my mind, the applicability of reduce() is pretty much limited to associative operators, and in all other cases it's better to write out the accumulation loop explicitly.