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