On Jun 20, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Riccardo Mottola <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
1) the fact that something doesn't "fit into the NeXT paradigm"
should
never ever be used as a reason for not including something in this
project. I find the reasoning to be outdated and unacceptable since
NeXT no longer exists.
this argument is unacceptable too sorry. The reasoning is perfectly
valid. We are not speaking about "Greg's file manager" written with
a certain paradigm and implemented in objective-c and GNUstep.
The topic is gworkspace. GWorkspace clearly has a paradigm and there
are features that fit it more, other that fit it less. GWorkspace's
design happens to follow NeXT's. It doesn't matter at all if NeXT is
dead and nobody knows about it anymore.
So my argument could have been written "It doesn't fit into
GWorkspace's paradigm" and would have meant the same, I only wanted
to be more explicit.
We can see that mixing paradigms can yield complex and inconsistent
user interface. The NeXT workspace was nice and excellent, the Mac
classic Finder was legendary in its working (although with
limitations). The result of merging them yielded an inconsistent
software in MacOS X which was then reviewed in 10.3 creating a
monster, perhaps one of the worst part of Mac, at least in my own
personal opinion. But it comforts me that I read critiques of it
from others too.
While it may have been written with a given paradigm, I don't see a
valid reason to forever limit it to that paradigm.
It's on that basis that I find the "it's not NeXT" argument
unacceptable. Too often this argument leads to subjective judgements
of whether a given thing belongs in GNUstep or not.
Additionally, it's this attitude which is often cited by people
outside gnustep as the reason why GNUstep's interface is "old" or
"antiquated". I would like to see it stopped, since it's hurting the
project.
2) I would like to see a more reasoned discussion regarding why it
should or should not be removed based on actual facts, not personal
feelings. So far neither side has produced any (the idea that it
might bitrot in the future is not sufficient.... Fact of the matter
us
that it hasn't done so yet)
Well, your argument about bitrotting is moot, since I am working on
GWorkspace ever since Enrico left the software (as I try to do with
the rest of his work). Several parts of GWorkspace already needed
fixing and maintenance.
To David's previous point on this.... Are you refactoring the code to
the point where it is becoming difficult to maintain the feature?
As features get added to software we can also from time to time
review if something is no longer essential or useful.
I may also add that facts may aid decisions, but since the work done
here is voluntary it ends up to the personal taste of one or few
persons. I don't want to enumerate them, but you know well it is so.
From decisions in the core architecture, support of platforms, usage
of certain programs...
Sometimes these decisions get made without even consulting the public.
I discussed this matter in the IRC channel and I got informative and
useful answers, I decided to widen the discussion on the mailing
list. What we had up to know is certainly not a constructive or even
informative discussion.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Certainly both David and I have given
reasoned responses to your question.
Cheers,
Riccardo
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
