Re: SV: READ THIS; Debian XFree86 4.0.1 mini-FAQ
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 05:47:02PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 10:20:38AM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote:
> >
> > And, if I'm not mistaken, imlib is one of Rasterman's over-glitzy
> > under-functional piles of code... :)
>
> Well, I don't think this is a very productive thread, but... No.
> Imlib may have had some bugs (what doesn't) but raster was quite
> correct to observe the need for it, and he wrote a library to handle a
> variety of image formats at any colour depth, and the fast copying of
> them to the screen, and memory management of them.
I didn't say it was a bad idea. Just that Rasterman didn't do a very good
job of programming it. :)
> The GNOME project realised that he was right about its necessity,
> although they eventually diverged from him over implementation issues
> (differing priorities). But I don't think it was particularly glitzy,
> no.
'Glitzy' can refer to a number of things. Such as the ego involved in its
presentation.
> And imlib2 offers transparency, which you probably think is glitzy,
> but I think it is a useful user interface element given that modern
> graphics hardware is up to the task.
Again, 'glitzy' can refer to a number of things. Features isn't glitz -
overglorified presentation of shoddily-implemented features is glitz. If
it's implemented right and in a nice, non-obtrusive way, it's not glitz -
and as long as imlib2's interface is done in a non-obtrusive way, I
wouldn't consider it glitzy.
Anyway. Sorry for hijacking this thread to be so off-topic. I'll shut up
now. :)
--
Joshua Shagam /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
joshagam@cs.nmsu.edu \ / No HTML/RTF in email
www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email
/ \ Respect for open standards
Reply to: