The current QS is definitely waaaay to fragmented, and subsequently is really difficult for new developers to try and pick up and help with. As we maintain it, it slowly breaks it since none of us are quite sure exaxctly what's what with QS.
A rewrite is definitely the best plan, but that's not to say people haven't thought about it already. There are lots of companies trying to take the QS mantle - Butler, Launchbar, QSB but none of them really match up to QS... yet. Thinking about rewrites, I'd say the best place to go would probably be to QSB (a project also started by Alcor). It's nowhere near as feature-proof as QS but it's getting there. Still, as I've always said: I'm still up for developing and maintaining QS until something else pops up that's just as good/ better. I've never thought QS would last forever, and still don't think it can :( But we have to do what we can to keep it alive until that day comes! On the subject of Open Source/Proprietry, the reason QS didn't work when it went open source was because it was basically abandoned. Lots of projects are made open source by companies/idividuals who then continue to develop but sadly that wasn't the case for QS. On Jan 18, 11:01 am, Ankur Oberoi <[email protected]> wrote: > I've spend about a dozen hours looking through the source and > ultimately decided if I was going to contribute I would want to work > on a rewrite. There's obviously a reason Alcor thinks it has to be > done and I agree. I got the sense that a lot of the code was > unmanageable and the design was ad-hoc. It's such a great App and it > works really well, but it's at a point where one person probably can't > keep the entire project in mind. This is the signal that a refactoring > would be beneficial. > > Is anyone interested in being part of a "task force" to carry out the > rewrite and design? I would like to participate but I think there is > the necessity to draw on existing functionality so I think it's key > that someone experienced with this codebase works on it too. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 17, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Rob McBroom <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 15, 2011, at 9:06 AM, camresu wrote: > > >> While we are on the topic of Apple I have seen a few posts on the Mac App > >> store, it seems people are eager to embrace this from apple, yet it is > >> brand new. > > > I don't think Quicksilver would be accepted as it is. Also, I think the App > > Store is a great way to get exposure to users, and while I welcome more > > users, what we really need are developers right now. Well, maybe that's not > > it either. I think we have many developers interested and aware of the > > issues, but none of them have time to do anything about it. > > > -- > > Rob McBroom > > <http://www.skurfer.com/>
