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 <[email protected]> wrote: > Riccardo, > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Riccardo Mottola > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > >> > >> Hi Greg, > >> > >> Am 04.12.2015 um 08:04 schrieb Gregory Casamento > >> <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
