Re: NSToolbar (was Re: Portability/Compatability between GNUstep<---> Cocoa...)

[Jason Clouse]

On 2004-01-13 17:43:01 +0100 Alexander Malmberg 
<alexander@malmberg.org> wrote:
> The problem with NSToolbar (and, in general, other bad changes)
> ultimately lies in the
> interface (ie. the API, not the UI). It can't be well implemented.

I was fully aware of that.  But the purpose of implementing these 
things is PURELY for portability.  If nobody here ever used it in an 
original application, I wouldn't care.  In attempting to promote the 
project, I've consistently found that portability is the clincher for 
people.  Making that as straightforward and effortless as possible is 
of the utmost importance.

> New code bloats the library, adds new complexity to the code,

Slightly.  But Alex's PortabilityKit fixes this.

> 3. Better alternatives.
>
> By adding "less-than-perfect" stuff now, we hamper the development of
> better stuff (either as part of the library, or as independent
> libraries). By adding NSToolbar, we make it harder to get a better
> designed GSToolbar done.

How?  If NSToolbar is truly inferior, people will be jumping at the 
chance to come up with something better.  Nature abhors a vacuum, 
somebody will think of something.  All you have to do is write a good 
GSToolbar, and put the NSToolbar in the PortabilityKit.  Besides: "the 
Perfect is the enemy of the Good."

You know what would *really* be cool is if we made GSToolbar portable 
in the opposite direction and split it off into its own framework as 
well (along with other redesigns of Apple classes) .  That would allow 
GNUstep applications to use the better solution and be instantly 
portable to OS X.  It might even encourage Apple developers to use the 
better solution if it's marketed and promoted heavily enough.