|
From: | Gregory Casamento |
Subject: | Re: removing spatial viewer from GWorkspace |
Date: | Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:10:45 -0400 |
On Jun 20, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Riccardo Mottola <multix@ngi.it> wrote:
Hi,1) the fact that something doesn't "fit into the NeXT paradigm" shouldthis 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.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 I find the reasoning to be outdated and unacceptable since NeXT no longer exists.The topic is gworkspace.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.
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.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 itmight bitrot in the future is not sufficient.... Fact of the matter usthat it hasn't done so yet)
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 Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |