[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.

From: Tim Harrison
Subject: Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:13:21 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120

Hey Jeff.

It's odd to be arguing with you without it being in real time, but I'll give it a shot... ;)

Jeff Teunissen wrote:

I don't know about that...I rather like 'Apps'. 'Applications' has a
pretentious "feel" to it.

I certainly don't see it as pretention. More of a consistency issue. GNUstep uses "Library" and "Libraries", as well as "Documentation" and "Developer". Those are not short forms. I don't see why one needs to shorten "Applications" to "Apps". I feel that Apps sounds too nonchalant. It's not intended to be pretentious, but to be descriptive.

I think the idea is that the GNUstep Libraries/ directory ought to be split
out into Foundation, AppKit, etc. frameworks. From the point of view of coding
a GNUstep app, they already are frameworks (ref. NSBundle), while a "library"
needn't be within the GNUstep hierarchy at all.

Once again, we agree here.  Frameworks are Good[tm]. :)


Tim Harrison

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]