Re: [MiNT] WCOWORK implementation : conclusions.

[Joakim Högberg <gokmase@gmail.com>]

> I'd say that the question is this: when updating old program, or writing
> a new one - will you write it with event_loop and all that crap while
> using WCOWORK that simplifies it a bit (and breaks the compatibility
> with other, older, dead-ish AESes), or will you go for a high-level GEM
> library that encapsulates it all? The Windom clearly should help
> application developers to be more productive. I think it would be smart
> to use work of others and build apps on top of libraries. That is the
> one of the main points of FOSS.

If I understand the issue correctly, noone is arguing that dynamic
libraries would be a bad idea at all. Quite the opposite. However, I
sense that the main concerns are related to how the libraries are
being implemented. With a proper implementation I can't understand why
something like WCOWORK would even be a problem.

/Joakim