[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Motivation to work on Blends

Quoting Andreas Tille (2014-10-28 10:45:37)
> The recent postings of Jonas about boxer made me wonder whether people 
> consider all this Blends stuff as some kind of "Andreas' coding 
> playground".

For the record: I don't.  I consider "all this Blends stuff" as the 
common way to do blends, with Boxer exploring an alternative path.

> I'm simply astonished if people starting to code something else since 
> they prefer Perl over Python who obviosly never had a look into the 
> existing codebase (where the relevant code is actually in Perl)

I find your distorted description of me rude!

Regarding Python: I mentioned that as an _example_ of _one_ reason to 
favor writing Boxer from scratch.

Regarding speaking in absolutes: You know for a fact (unless senile 
which I higly doubt) that I have looked at the blends-dev codebase 
before - when you asked me to help debug its Python-based templating 
code (now gone, indeed - but that's beside my point).

> I have no idea what makes Debian Parl and Debian Design so different 
> that other Blends could not profit from adapting anything from new 
> ideas developed there

Who says they cannot profit?  Not me.

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2014-10-27 16:16:51)
> Anyone can benefit from same refinements by use of the boxer-data
> package - if agreeing with its implicit choices favoring lightweight
> over heavy and GTK+ over Qt.  Or use only the boxer tool, developing
> an independent set of classes with other choices.

Perhaps you mean that _blends-dev_ cannot profit.  Even that seem 
unlikely since Boxer is modular perl - but integration obviously require 
work, and someone needs to do that work.  Me?

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: