|
| From: | Luis Garcia Alanis |
| Subject: | Re: Plans for ahead |
| Date: | Sat, 5 Dec 2015 21:55:39 -0800 |
I have started this as it seems I'm the only one interested in seeing it happen this way. I worked on this kind of thing when I worked on Winamp for AOL so I know it's possible and relatively easy to do.On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 17:53 James Carthew <jcarthew@gmail.com> wrote:A lot of great arguments in here, I agree that making it easier to port Macintosh games to Linux using GNUstep is a worthy goal. I also agree that the creators of Simple Webkit/Vespucci may want to use it as a simple HTML viewer similar to the Microsoft Help Viewer and may not want to extend the program into a full browser. That's OK.Now as a desktop user who would like to run GUNstep full time, I have to ask, has anyone actually started making chromium embedded embed into a gnustep window? I used Mantella in the past and I was happy with it. Mantella was this exact idea with firefox. Unfortunately the interface to firefox they used was deprecated.On 4 December 2015 at 23:32, Gregory Casamento <greg.casamento@gmail.com> wrote:Riccardo,
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Riccardo Mottola
<riccardo.mottola@libero.it> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Am 04.12.2015 um 08:04 schrieb Gregory Casamento
>> <greg.casamento@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Nikolaus,
>>>
>>> There are many reasons why SWK is behind:
>>>
>>> 1) It has a very large head start...
>>> 2) WebKit has critical mass.
>>> 3) Tons of people are contributing to it and, more importantly, testing
>>> it
>>> 4) it is well known and widely used.
>>
>> Yes, you are right. But all those arguments also hold for the whole
>> GNUstep
>> project compared to anything else. But do we stop it for any of these
>> reasons?
No one said for you guys to stop. Similarly I think we should
proceed on writing a browser using CEF.
> Exactly, these arguments come up over and over again. Hy don't we use GTK
> directly? or Windows or Mac?
> where do you draw a line?
The answer is we are all free to do or use whatever we wish. SWK
will continue to advance and will hopefully one day match the
functionality of webkit, but in the mean time we need a browser. And
the only way to do that today in a way that is viable for every day
use given then complexities and expectations most people have of
web-browsers is to use CEF to back it.
>> Well, where could we be today if there had been just 10 contributions per
>> month
>> in the past ~5 years since I presented SWK the last time at FOSDEM...
>>
>> For the same reasons I have reduced the number of my contributions to
>> GNUstep...
>>
>
> I think then I would be be browsing GNUstep's Documentation on my letux 400
> :)
> And you could display search for "GNUstep" in duckduckgo.com (at least in
> the conveniently provided non-JS version) on your OpenMoko or your wonderful
> "tablet" I still remember.
Unfortunately the Letux is outmoded and the OpenMoko is no longer
practical given the current state of smart phones.
>>> SWK is
>>> missing many critical features, not the least of which is _javascript_
>>> support.
>>
>> It has some rudimentary JS support (ECMAscript = JS)... E.g.
>>
>>
>> http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/gnustep/libs/simplewebkit/trunk/Sources/ECMAScriptParser.m?revision=37330&view=markup
>>
>> But indeed nothing which works for doing anything useful.
>> Mainly the connection between JS and the DOM trees is missing.
>
>
> For the real usage I envision in short-term for SWK, better CSS and Form
> support is actually more important than JS I think. Although some
> rudimentary JS is very convenient.
>
>> I am not saying "no" to alternate approaches. Yes, please go ahead!
>>
>> If SWK is enough pain so that someone eventually provides a really better
>> browser,
>> SWK has reached its goal :)
>>
>
> Isn't there place for two or more engines in the world? If you like warship,
> you may love a Bismarck [1]. But I bet they aren't for everything! you need
> a small fast boat like a Riva Aquarama [2] too! Then you sure enjoy a tour
> on the lake.
> Does it have 12 superheated boilers to travel at 30 knots using 150.000 HP?
> No, but it traveled at 45 knots! and the Mahogany is perhaps more
> comfortable than hardened steel. It doesn't carry 4 planes either, but
> perhaps you can have a bottle of champagne and a woman at your side.
> Your choice. And we can have both in your yard.
> By discussing the way we do we won't have probably anything or end at most
> with a cargo ship.
>
> Discussions to "plan ahead" are nice, as well as sharing opinions is. But
> these kind of threads aren't of good. They end up offending existing
> developers, stirring up souls and reducing commits.
>
> Riccardo
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riva_Aquarama
--
Gregory Casamento
GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant
http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com
http://ind.ie/phoenix/
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |