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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
