Ah, I see I misunderstood. I took Chris' comment as if it applied to the stable release, not just the beta. Apologies for the noise.
-Dan Please excuse typos; composed on a handheld device. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Iverson <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 21:09:50 To: Beta forum<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Jbeta] Gtk IDE You are reading lots of complication into what is very simple. We open the betas up to participants very early on and they are therefor very rough. If one doesn't like being at the bleeding edge, one should wait. If we delayed until things were cleanly cast in stone, then folks would castigate us for being too close to the chest. Newcomers should steer clear of betas, or be prepared for some serious confusion on the ride. The final release will be clean and elegant. It will be that way in large part due to community feedback and contributions during the bloddy bits. On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > Björn wrote: > > Is it really necessary to have the distribution in one stream? > > Raul responded: > > I think that that would be a great thing. > > Essentially, it means that the system is cohesive. > > I agree strongly with Raul. At the very least, the default download should > be similar to J6, in that you get the engine > (DLL+jconsole), a friendly GUI frontend (GTK), and the standard library. > JHS could be optional or a separate download. > > J's existing community is still small, and we are still in "recruitment > mode", and we should be sensitive about a newcomer's first > experience. > > > The official J7 distribution will be a barebones system, > > that will be essentially what Jsoftware provides and supports > > This statement concerns me. Will JSoftware not support the standard > library? Will it not JGTKIDE? Will it not support JHS? > > I can understand if it's JSoftware's *hope* that "the community" will > support these extras, but I cannot understand if that's > JSoftware's *expectation*. Again, if only because our community is small. > And because we've tried that approach (or similar > approaches) in the past on J subsystems (e.g. inter-J-communication, or the > "open" J IDE), with limited success. Though JAL is > inspiring. > > If JSoftware wants to go down this road, it might be time to reconsider > open-sourcing the engine. Though I don't know how much of > the revenue stream comes from source licenses vs consulting. > > -Dan > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
