On Tuesday 29 May 2007 19:46:26 Sanel Zukan wrote: > Putting code into namespaces does not makes cleaner api/interface, altought one > will think they do. Going beyond simple hello world (no, I am not offending
Well, now you are taking onto C++ account the fundamental difference between 1.x and 2.x versions, unless you are trying to say that 1.x version is actually C not C++ library. Namespace as C++ feature should make life easier (as it does to *many* others), but if someone thinks that cluttering global namespace with "original names" is better for him to organize the code, than I cannot argue with that, because it's probably individual "taste". > I'll bite :) So what are you considering 'a bug'? Doxygen can't > generate proper docs, compiler errors, what are they? Program amusements? Amusements? Yes, it's "amusing, if you try to use Alpha software only for sport and enthusiasm, you might even lose some calories :) In formal terms that is a bug, but bug that takes a significantly a lot less effort to correct than for example the bug that's causing Esc key to behave somewhat like "Undo" in text box. > What you said is throwing away any single effort put into any code here (not That's absolutely incorrect. If you want to twist my words, than try to do that in some other way, please. > to say how disrespects those who did that), no matter was that actual I sincerely apoligize if I insulted anyone, but still I cannot agree that changing "nmspace" to "namespace" is actually a *great* bug fix and/or feature add/improvement. If someone else is fixing that instead of the one who made that mistake, then that one should have a word with him about not even compiling code before commiting. > some investment in it (nerves, time, stopping currently played movie; just name it). I understand that, and I really, honestly (no matter that I don't necessarily agree with "the ideology") appreciate the effort of FLTK developers, but please, you also try to appreciate my interest as a user, you cannot really expect me to silently continue the use of Alpha library in production code, and when "weekly snapshot" does'nt even compile, I just bite my thumb, in silence of course, and not even try to disturb someone with such minor issues because someone might perceive it as disrespect :) > And this whole discussion is about that. Is it? Plase read the following: On Tuesday 29 May 2007 17:26:40 MacArthur, Ian (SELEX) (UK) wrote: > In practice, no one really sets priorities in open source projects - > when the workers are volunteers, you can't tell them which bits to > fix... You can maybe suggest/request they fix certain bits, but if they > want to fix something else instead, that's what they fix. > Instead, projects evolve depending on the input from the interests of > the active members... so what's the actual use of this discussion when after it, everyone will continue to act as (they please/think is the best) before? On Tuesday 29 May 2007 20:29:12 imm wrote: > I think it has worked very well. And I think that the quality of the > code is generally enhanced by allowing "natural evolution" rather > than by trying to enforce a specific agenda. People do a better job > on the things they really need... Trust me, you don't want me to start talking about philosophical issues :)) but in short I strongly doubt that anything could function properly without some kind of hierarchy, whether it's on money, ideology, intellectual interest, sex expectations... > but maybe Millan's perception that there is more activity on 1.1 is > down to something as simple as that you (Matthias) and Mike post here > more often than Bill or Fabien tend to do? No Ian, it's not just that, it's mainly about summing where these two are *today*: FLTK 1.x has reached stable 1.8 version and FLTK 2.x is still in Alpha stage and still has issues even with compiling new code. On Tuesday 29 May 2007 21:22:59 Greg Ercolano wrote: > Yes, just about all open source works this way.. Linux being > the biggest. I disagree with the 'anarchy=bad' sentiments.. Greg, with all due respect, I don't think that behind kernel developers is nothing more than enthusiasm and beleif in GNU :) > it has gotten us this far, as well as all software. It's not Where has it gotten Linux for example? I know I'm stepping in the minefield now with this, but using Linux as my desktop OS for all this time, I think I have right to talk about it (even if that's offtopic :)). Before "Longhorn" (Vista), Linux occupied ~1% desktop share, and you could hear everywhere on net that since Longhorn's release is again delayed, it will help Linux boost its desktop share. And where is it now when Vista (Longhiorn) is finally released, again Linux hold no more than ~2% (at best) desktop share. There are numerous issues and most of them are IMHO result of those GPL anarchy-like licensing, there's not binary compatibility, there's library mess all around because everyone is using what he pleases even if those libraries break compatibility with every minor releases, no standard GUI/Graphical Desktop Environment so one who wants write software like he could for Windows, he should sustain KDE/GTK/*Box/XFCE/... version in his program, there's a poor packaing support where one distro does'nt necessarily support other packing system and for so much glorified apt-get system if one (company? is that allowed to exist in GPL world) wants his software to run on those systems than it has to be in repository not just on his site, there are about several thousands different distros with different default libraries, different environments, service sustem (BSD or System V)... So IMHO Linux is actually not very good example of open source/GPL (yes I know those two don't always come in hand by hand, but it's mostly like that) supremacy and well organized system. I'm wnated to use FLTK for it's small size, so I could easily statically link my program and not expecting from user to have that library and exact version for that program to work (once on Slackware I had to install two versions of wxWidgets, one for aMule, and other for xchm). Java could help a lot in this, although I don't think that releasing it under GPL is such a good idea for that language, but that's another issue (offtopic). In best intention I also must say that currently two main adventages (at least on Desktop systems) of FLTK to other libraries - speed and small footprint, will lose its ignificance in time (if it alredy has'nt). Nowdays, on a average PC machine, an average sized [QT/WX...] program, will probably run at the same speed as FLTK program, and on ~100 GB HD'a it does'nt matter if program is smaller by several hundreds KB's if it lacks other (GUI) features and acceptable GUI looks. Anyway, at the end, I surely won't push anyones back to do what I think is the right thing to do (I also leave possibilty that I'm wrong, of course), and all this writing is definitelu not simply to insult someone, I was only trying to indicate some of the good and bad points in this issue. _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
