I understand Dejan's fears, probably many want to avoid whatever happened with fltk2, once bitten, twice shy.
Seems like the thing to do is to clearly spell out exactly how fltk3 avoids that same fate. (It seems to, since I take it Matt made some kind of change that was very simple.. I've not looked into it, but it sounds great) Certainly it seems like two things happened in fltk2: a) lost its momentum when the dev project leader moved on to other things, and b) due to its lack of 1.x compatibility, lost any support from the 1.x users to switch to it. I know that if I'd been a 2.x convert, I'd have lobbied and been involved in its maintenance, as I have commercial software pressure behind me. But since 2.0 was never officially released, I never jumped, being too familiar with the general pattern of stalled 2.0 rewrites. I think back in 2004 I'd posted a slashdot article "Rewrites Considered Harmful?" that warned about rewrites of popular software, which rang true to me, having run into this effect once or twice before myself: http://slashdot.org/developers/04/01/15/1837242.shtml Original article: http://www.neilgunton.com/doc/rewrites_harmful _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
