On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:18:01 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:05:00 +0100 Tom Hacohen > <tom.haco...@samsung.com> said: > > > On 22/06/13 02:42, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:04:32 +0100 Tom Hacohen > > > <tom.haco...@samsung.com> said: > > > > > >> Hey, > > >> > > >> I often argue against adding new features (and bugs), libs, > > >> widgets, etcetera. > > >> > > >> I often explain my stance in a per case way. However I stumbled > > >> across this nice article which explains where I am coming from. > > >> > > >> You should probably read it, and hopefully be more conscious > > >> about it: > > >> http://firstround.com/article/The-one-cost-engineers-and-product-managers-dont-consider > > > > > > there's a project you'd love and adore. it's called gnome 3. > > > remove all possibly removable features and options. :) > > > > > > yes. features. code.. they cost more than just development. it's > > > called maintenance. s a project gets bigger (more code. more > > > features) it requires more manpower for maintenance. that's life. > > > > > > > You either mistakenly or intentionally got it wrong. I guess me > > writing E (while actually meaning EFL + E) was also confusing. > > > > Obviously if customizability is a main feature of your "product", > > those features are essential and should not be dropped. I was more > > talking about adding elm widgets just for the sake of it, or > > thinking about adding things. > > > > Also, I don't completely agree with everything he said, but it's > > still a good read and I think everyone should take some things from > > it. > > well his article makes a VERY strong point of "never add features.. > ever!!!! (unless you absolutely must and have no choice and can > justify it)" in fact it makes a point of removing features. it's a > very gnome-like stance. > > yes - elm has too many. we need to refactor much of it to at least > internally be the same widget/core just with differing styles. toggle > got refactored into check at some point. we could refactor radio and > check to merge. gengrid and genlist should become one. etc. u may > notice no new widgets have appeared in elm for a while. I've thought for about a decade, mayby longer, that a widget set should be a tiny number of very generic building blocks and some inheritance. I called it Not A Widget Set. > this is also why we've talked about bob... punt off every little > customization off into snippets of lua... :) edje itself has also > become a massive blob of "features" too... and this is an attempt at > finding a better way to manage our feature-pile. Bob and Lua? Something I've managed to fail to know about? -- A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
