On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2. There has been ongoing discussions in IPython about a wx-based > notebook. Do you think the IPython community would benefit from a wx > gui plugin? Yeah, there was the google SoC project about wx notebook, but I haven't seen much talk about it lately. I don't know the exact status of it, but I wouldn't count on anybody picking up a wx based leo on that direction. > 3. I would like to clean up the wx gui code so that it could be > extended *by somebody else*. The present situation is a mess. Just a Actually, having someone extend it could be seen as negative rather than positive - precisely in dilluting developer and user (testing) time. Wx completely overlaps Qt, while not bringing anything in particular to the table (now that the Qt license issue is resolved). I just don't think people are so interested in wx anymore that they would want to work specifically with that, for new projects. It makes sense to stick with & optimize the Qt ui, in an attempt to match (and eventually exceed) the Tk ui. > day or two of work will make it possible for others to use the code > with some confidence. In other words, I'd like to get rid of the > experimental versions of the code so that they don't deter others from > working on wx if that is useful to them. But do you really want people working with wx code, including bug reports, disappointed complaints about half-baked support and unexisting future plans? Wouldn't it be cleaner to flag the wx code as "abandoned"? Having 2 ui's is a bit of "necessary evil" at this point, but 3 could be a bit too much, esp. at the stage where only the Tk ui is totally "complete" and battle-tested. > 4. Finally, I simply can not bear to leave unfinished projects > unfinished. It's a big drain on psychic resources. Much better to > take a week or two and leave the project in a reasonable state. Heh, this is a personality issue - I personally just love nuking old code that turns out to be unnecessary :-). I think that code that "works" is not important in itself, because it just adds to the complexity and "moving parts" - code that is not there at all doesn't. Contrast this with the past complaints about Python having too many web frameworks because everyone wanted to write one, while the end users just wanted one that is good (which seems to be django these days). None of this takes away from the fact that it could be fun to write, and it's of little use bickering about what one should write and what one shouldn't write - having fun is what makes the whole thing worthwhile, and if it needs to be written to "get it out of your system", so be it. From marketing perspective, it could still be better to emphasize that leo has 2 gui's, with other code existing "for entertainment purposes only". -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
