Sorry for the top post but one amendment: I agree that NeXTstep and OPENSTEP mentions should not be as prominent as they are.
On Monday, March 7, 2016, Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote: > Doc, > > On Monday, March 7, 2016, Doc O'Leary <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> For your reference, records indicate that >> Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > When someone wants to submit a patch that's one >> > thing, but if someone expresses a desire to add more then they become >> > responsible for it. >> >> And yet I see bugs dating back to 2003 that are still unassigned. If >> someone has taken responsibility for the involved classes/frameworks, why >> aren’t these issues being resolved? If nobody is taking responsibility, >> it makes GNUstep a very hard thing to recommend to people. > > > So? So what if they're not resolved? Some of them may have been > addressed but not marked as fixed in the bug system. Please, if you will, > go to the gnome big list and let me know if it's empty. You are drawing a > strawman argument in the sense that you are assuming we don't care because > you can find bugs which isn't true at all. > >> >> > This is plainly beyond the scope of a mission statement. Also saying we >> > are "bringing Cocoa to other platforms" clearly implies that there is a >> > path. >> >> I disagree. Maybe it’s because the US is in a big election years, but I >> have *zero* trust today that anyone has a plan for anything they say >> unless they explicitly state said plan with a fair degree of detail. It >> may not be as pithy as a shorter “executive summary mission statement, but >> my argument is that a full plan is *necessary* to organize the modest >> resources the project has available to meet the stated goals. > > > It's too bad that you disagree. You yourself said that a mission > statement needs to be short and understandable. The one I mentioned is > just that. Was it not you that mentioned Kennedy? I'm sorry you can't > see the implications in the statement. Perhaps you should review it and > think about it at length. If not then I would be happy to walk you through > the reasoning. > > >> >> > > We can’t just ignore the big gorilla in the room (Apple), either. >> > >> > Sure we can. We can mention we are compatible with something by name. >> As >> > long as there is not a possibility of brand confusing we are clear in >> the >> > legal sense, so there is no sense making a huge deal about this. In my >> 20 >> > years on this project there has not been a single stirring of the fruit >> > basket. ;) I don't expect one now unless we become wildly popular >> which, >> > given how things are going, I believe that Apple is the absolute least >> of >> > our concerns. >> > You misunderstand my mention of Apple. It’s not to highlight them as a >> threat, but as a potential resource of development talent given their >> status as the world’s primary Cocoa platform. Outreach doesn’t appear >> to be part of the plan, and that remains a huge problem for GNUstep. >> >> > I've been saying on this list for years that cocoa devs are our primary > target. I have even worked for a few companies to help make this happen. > > The plain truth of the matter is that most cocoa development shops are not > interested in porting their apps. I have talked with many and they see it > as extra overhead they don't need since they feel as though they are doing > well enough or, alternatively, they are relying on another cross platform > environment like Java or something similar. > > Only very few have opted for ObjC on platforms outside of Mac. > > >> > The mission statement I gave is very short, understandable, and crystal >> > clear such that anyone with a primary / grade school education would be >> > able to follow it. >> >> And yet in a decade when ObjC interest has exploded, it doesn’t appear >> GNUstep has taken advantage of that. So, based on the evidence, >> do you *really* think you’re getting your message out there clearly? I >> argue that setting specific goals, and measuring progress against them, >> is both far more scientific and far more clear than something that is >> meant for children. > > > Interest in GNUstep has increased in the last decade. The reason this > hasn't spread to us as much as expected is that 99% of the interest in ObjC > has occurred on the iPhone/UIKit based platforms. I pushed for a UIKit > implementation base on GNUstep to no avail. I also started on an > implementation of sorts. It was not picked up. > > It should be mentioned that we are missing a similar opportunity with > swift. I am currently doing this myself. Those who are capable of helping > me are free to join me at any time in the effort. The GNUstep fork of the > swift repo is on github and is not private. > > >> >> > http://mediawiki.gnustep.org/index.php/Writing_portable_code >> > >> > This page details both directions. The issue is that it is not linked >> to >> > on the site so it is not immediately obvious how this should work. >> >> No, the *real* issue is that nobody knows for sure if it is an accurate >> representation of the current state of GNUstep. The issue is that code >> still comes first, documentation *may* follow, and then it seems that >> things are often left to rot. I would argue, for example, that in makes >> no sense in 2016 to be talking about NeXT anymore, except as a historical >> excerpt. > > > I fail to see how we should assure them that it is current and accurate. > Your assertion is somewhat circular in the sense that unless you actually > try to use it you may not know if it's accurate and indeed we may not know > of there is a problem unless someone reports a problem. You cannot simply > say "prove to me it's accurate a priori" > > >> >> That’s why I say this is a problem that cannot be fixed by just >> committing more code. It needs an organizational shift, which should >> means a frank discussion on what the real vision of the project is >> going to be over the next 10 years (hell, I’d even take 4 years). > > > I've given you a mission statement and where the project is heading. I'm > the project lead. I should know, right? ;) > > nobody on the inside wants to talk about the heart of the matter, and >> that makes most people on the outside decide to stay on the outside. >> >> > I am perfectly willing to discuss this. Most of your time on his thread > has been devoted to convincing us that we should discuss this amongst > ourselves. I believe that after all of these posts we would all love to > actually discuss it rather than discuss and complain about how it's not > being discussed. By all means.... Please give us an idea of what you think > GNUstep should be. The floor on this mailing list is open. Have at it. > > >> -- >> "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." >> River Tam, Trash, Firefly >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss-gnustep mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep >> > > Yours, > > > -- > Gregory Casamento > GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant > http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com > http://ind.ie/phoenix/ > > -- 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
