APR
26
2004

The People Behind KDE: Alexander Kellett

This week The People Behind KDE travels back to the 'Low Lands' or Netherlands where we visit the guy who is known for his 'gruesome green shorts', wants to marry into a KDE family and describes himself as 'very weird'. Are you anxious to find out more about this colorful personality? Than read all there is to know about Alexander Kellett!

Comments

I heard KDE will also get translated to Frysk, a dutch regional language. So, does he speak Frysk or low saxon?


By gerd at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

unfortunately not, only been in nederland for the last 3 years
so i'm not even very good at nederlands itself yet :P

cheers,
Alex (half dutch half english)


By lypanov at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

What about esperanto...


By Axel at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

I am sad too, that Esperanto is not part of the distributions anymore!

Think about it: EU is getting larger with 1.5. and we need a really good
common language!


By atrink at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

...I'm still waiting for...
...drumroll...
a FreePascal binding!!! ;-)
Well, I know this is still far away but this
would be WAY cool.
FreePascal is now very advanced, supports inline
assembler code, compiles extremely fast, and more.
If only there would be some way to write KDE apps
with it.


By Martin at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

What are you waiting for? I hear KDE's systems for generating language bindings are second to none. If you want FreePascal bindings, and nobody else is working on them, then get cracking! FreePascal isn't going to bind itself you know :-)


By Spy Hunter at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

"I hear KDE's systems for generating language bindings are second to none"

Yes, it would be possible to generate Pascal code from the KDE headers via the kalyptus tool, assuming FreePascal has OO features.

But can FreePascal interface directly to C++, or does it need to go via C bindings? If so that's a major problem. And as Pascal isn't a dynamic language, you wouldn't be able to use the 'SMOKE' library.

Ashley Winters, who designed SMOKE, has proposed a library for using static languages with SMOKE, called 'Mirror'. If there was enough demand for static language bindings he might implement that.


By Richard Dale at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

That's the problem. FreePascal is an OO-Language with (non-trivial)
OO features but it cannot interface directly with C++. This is the
major hurdle right now unfortunately AFAIK.


By Martin at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

The nasty evil part is trying to interface Qt with any language lacking usable argument-based method dispatching. What the hell am I supposed to name the 20 different insertItem() functions in a language limited to one set of arguments per function name? (fortunately for all, the O'CamlQt bindings have no problems here)

That alone is enough to stop any serious effort at generating a programmer-friendly C binding. As far as making a programmer-unfriendly C binding for the purpose of improving performance in static languages by allowing JNI-style calls into the wrapper library -- I'd need to see some really bad C# benchmarks, wherein Gtk# is kicking our ass 20x. :)


By Ashley Winters at Wed, 2004/04/28 - 5:00am

"..fortunately for all, the O'CamlQt bindings have no problems here"

And I thought this was another one of our jolly kdebindings April Fools :). Woo hoo! - a functional language using a GUI binding based on message passing OOP.

"I'd need to see some really bad C# benchmarks, wherein Gtk# is kicking our ass 20x. :)"

Yup no problem, I think I can deliver that sort of thing - I think the initial version may well run at about that speed. Especially for me as the jit doesn't work on PowerPC, and I have to run everything with mint.

On the other hand, perhaps gtk# is an example of premature optimisation over design/implementation flexibility. The tortoise and the hare?


By Richard Dale at Wed, 2004/04/28 - 5:00am


By gerd at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

A lypie pic in which he is not smiling (or fainting).

This is what I call cognitive dissonance. I can't deal with it.


By taj at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

But it look human on this one ;)


By Mathieu Chouinard at Tue, 2004/04/27 - 5:00am

That is his preferred spelling..

He did more for the ruby bindings than he said in the interview - great stuff Alex!


By Richard Dale at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

Is there some hidden meaning here ?

According to http://www.lcfanfic.com/faq_grammar.html
"Wierd is not a word. The correct spelling is Weird."

Also my English/German dictionary doesn't know a word wierd.

Did you mean wired ~ connected ?


By Harald Henkel at Mon, 2004/04/26 - 5:00am

Thanks for the input :-)


By Harald Henkel at Tue, 2004/04/27 - 5:00am

"Is there some hidden meaning here ?"

No, weird is the correct spelling, 'wierd' isn't a proper word. Hence, 'wierd' is weirder ;)
Alex used that spelling once on the kdebindings list, so it's just me being silly - I left off a smiley perhaps.

-- Richard


By Richard Dale at Tue, 2004/04/27 - 5:00am

The Dutch spelling would be 'wierd' because that's the way it's pronounced and it's popular in the Netherlands to spell it that way. I guess my spelling checker picked it up and changed it to weird.

--
Tink


By Tink at Tue, 2004/04/27 - 5:00am

ooohh, wow. your probably right on this tink!
i've always wondered why i spell it "wrong" every time :P

Alex


By lypanov at Tue, 2004/04/27 - 5:00am

thank u richard :)
for the "great stuff"
and for the preferred spelling :P

Alex


By lypanov at Tue, 2004/04/27 - 5:00am