On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:34 PM, Brent Simmons wrote:
>
> All good points. But one way to think about this: does multiple main windows
> *have* to be in there for a successful 1.0?
No. I would like it, but you're right: very few features *must* be there for
1.0.
> It's common, when discussing a particular feature, to magnify its importance.
> (I do it all the time myself.)
Me too, and perhaps I'm doing that in this case. I mean, this feature is very
important to *me*, since it is fundamental to how I use my email client.
However, there are several people who have chimed in along the lines of "Hey,
cool! I didn't know Mail could do that!" So, then, lots of people *don't* use
this feature. Are there enough people who expect to be able to use multiple
mail perspectives that it's important to *Letters* to have this feature in 1.0?
Maybe not.
I personally feel strongly--and therefore have been trying to persuade others
in this thread--that supporting multiple viewers is the Right Thing. So that
should at least be the eventual goal, whenever it can be successfully
implemented.
(BTW it's been gratifying to have folks hear out my overlong arguments and, in
some cases, reconsider their initial opinions.)
> But getting to 1.0 is going to be a scarily ruthless process. (Or, it should
> be, anyway.) And the general rule needs to be something more like "does this
> *really* have to be in there for this release to be successful?"
>
> It's okay if users want more. And, no matter what you do, no matter how many
> features are added, people will *always* want more. ("I'd switch to
> Letters.app in a heartbeat if only it _____." If Letters is a success, we'll
> still be hearing that in five and 10 years.)
>
> Maybe this feature really does have to be there for a successful 1.0. (I
> don't know.) I'm just suggesting a way of thinking about design issues like
> this.
>
> -Brent
>
> PS Should the code be written in a way that doesn't preclude this feature? My
> personal opinion: yes, since in this case that's just good architecture.
The crux of my argument is just that supporting multiple viewers, on balance,
is better than limiting their number to only one. So if it could be done for
1.0, great, and if not, then okay get it into some future version.
But at the implementation level, one way isn't significantly harder than the
other. It'll be the same window controller and same handful of view
controllers, either way. As you point out, that code should be written to work
regardless of how many window/view instances are created, in any event.
So if it's just a choice to make, and doesn't materially impact the coding
workload, why not consider the angles and just make that choice up front?
(Or do you mean that on the death-march toward 1.0, just *debating* this issue
at length takes too long? Given the length of this thread, that argument could
definitely be made...)
Cheers,
--
Mason
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
