Re: Heated agreement? (was) Re: Canvas shortcomings

[Lauris Kaplinski <lauris ximian com>]

Hello Mark!

I agree 100% that devoting more time to generic design issues could make
gnome a much better platform - and eventually speed up component 
development too.
But unfortunately I cannot see, how such extended communication and
coordination could happen in current community :(

Best wishes,
Lauris Kaplinski

On 30 Jun 2001 00:34:52 -0400, Mark wrote:
> Design-wise, I think Gnome should still specify an abstract interface for
> the target development platform. The Java API in particular is an example
> of a very coherent and consistent development platform, although 
> techincally I think a better platform can be designed. Implementation wise
> Java (and maybe Qt/KDE?) is very monolithic. I agree free software doesn't
> tend to be developed in such a way. However, what Gnome can do is specify
> a target design, and use what ever free software is available to implement
> this design. Sometimes this might spawn new projects, and I would
> encourage such projects to be very specific in their functionality, but I
> realise I have no such control over what people would like to develop.
> 
> To sum up, I think Gnome would benifit from somewhat of a design oriented
> aproach. It seems at some level development ideology (Bonobo) takes
> precedence over design and technological considerations.
> 
> Mark