​On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:20 AM, 'Marcel Franke' via leo-editor <
leo-editor@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>  Leo's source code is difficult in places because it's always dealing with
>> the DAG. That can't be helped. Leo devs are special people.
> And I say Leo's architecture could be way more simpler and more modular,
> allowing people to more easily contribute with less control from anyone.
> There is only a minimal neccessary core for what leo is doing, the rest is
> just bloat for comfort, though leo is not designed that way. Or more
> exactly, it did not grow that way, after all this is the original problem
> here. Historical grown design. Today everyone here want's to do way more
> with leo than you originally planned for it of what the architecture can
> easily deliver.

​No way is this even remotely true.  Leo's classes are mostly what they
were 20 years ago. To my knowledge, there is no significant interactions
between classes *or* modules. That's what modularity means. This is what
allows me, say, to contemplate rewriting Leo's undo code.

This kind of general criticism, without any grounding in fact, is
disrespectful and unhelpful.  If you have specific suggestions to make,
then make them.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to