On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> wrote: > To focus on very specific items that you mentioned: > > I did some exploration into using eo/lian in enlightenment a few years ago > and instability immediately proved that this was a waste of time. I have no > interest in revisiting or considering anything related to > eo/eolian/bindings/interfaces/etc until stable releases have shipped with > compatibility guarantees.
yes, the common assumption is this all depends on more mature eo. Backward compatibility will take more time as without real world usage we cannot claim it's fully ready... it would mean us to carry a potentially big pile of crap of pseudo-legacy. I see this will be the biggest hurdle... chicken-egg :-/ > Your premise that enlightenment does not use elementary is false, What I mean is that E wasn't converted to be pure ELM, e_widget is still there as you said. > has been for a few years. The legacy e_widget apis remain, but widgets uses > elementary internally where possible. This was done to avoid having to > rewrite the entire gui at the same time as doing the widget conversion--a > separate and much larger task which is still pending. There are exceptions > to this, namely ilist (which would have required significant and invasive > rewrites to convert to genlist) and e_icon (which, at the time, provided > features which were not present in any single elm widget). I get that and we're under-powered, then priorities need to apply. but that may be even of help with my approach: since you need to rewrite to ELM and some changes are invasive... would you consider to rewrite those in higher-level language and infrastructure? by infrastructure I mean things like "*.epc" (elm_prefs). IMO we should pick that, add what's missing and put to usage... it's meant to simplify simple configurations while allowing extensions to produce complex. > All new code added since then, e.g., gadgets, does not use e_widget apis. > > I agree that binding support is useful, and I plan to provide support for > other languages in modules (again, I have no interest at all in discussing > or considering technical details of this until stable releases of related > apis are shipping). I do not, however, plan to rewrite any part of the core > using a language other than C. by core I guess you mean src/bin, then okay... since most dialogs and other stuffs are modules anyway. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri -------------------------------------- Mobile: +55 (16) 99354-9890 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
