On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 04:01:53PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > Martin Vermeer wrote: > > OK, but let's then make sure gtk is minimally useable before that. We > > shouldn't lose this investment (in GUI-I, I mean). > > What is the important legacy of the GUII project? IMO it is the clean and > understandable code that has, eventually, been written. It will be trivial > to maintain the LyX frontend code because it's easy to see what it does. > > That's not the case with the 13x dialogs, f.ex. The code in > frontends/controllers baffled everybody except me :) Things are much > clearer now. Transparent, even. > > So, whilst multiple possible frontends is somehow "nice", it's not very > important IMO.
Entropy, Angus. That, and human nature. It's like with platform or achitecture independence: if actually using multiple platforms isn't forcing you, it _will_ slowly decay. > I'm actually quite hopeful about the ongoing health of this project. Not > because it has a vibrant community of active developers; it doesn't. > However, the vibrant community of semi-retired developers that it does > have have, over the years, turned obfuscated line noise into coherent > code. > > The fact that you yourself have squashed so many bugs recently is actually > testement to the soundness of André's inset-unification design. I wonder > if we'll ever see it completed? Ask again after 1.4.0 is out :-) As for 1.4.0cvs being unstable as Michael reports, let us understand that this is still heavily instrumented code. The "crash" due to recursive update was in reality an assert put there precisely to find such "deep" problems. And we shouldn't _yet_ remove them... as we will in the production version. So we're getting a bit too pessimistic picture now, I think. Like with the speed too. - Martin
pgpFQYLHe2Zf5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
