Re: removing spatial viewer from GWorkspace

[Gregory Casamento]

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"  
> > should
> > 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  I find the reasoning to be outdated and unacceptable since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.
> this 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.
>
> 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.

> > 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 it
> > might bitrot in the future is not sufficient.... Fact of the matter  
> > us
> > that it hasn't done so yet)
> 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.

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