On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:25 AM, David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Right now only a thought exercice, but you can get info there : https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/bob/ . -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
