Re: [MiNT] [Mint-cvs] [FreeMiNT CVS] lib/gemlib

[Evan Langlois <Evan@CoolRunningConcepts.com>]

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:01 +0200, Joakim Högberg wrote:
> The only reason to use the word ridicilous in this context would be if one wants to come off
> as very rude. It translates into a direct insult to anyone who would actually fancy the suggested changes.
> Just a thought - maybe "open discussions" would work better if that kind of stuff was avoided...?

I really can't agree more.  The name-calling is more counter-productive
than anything else I can imagine.

> Exactly what is the big problem from WinDoms point of view, with the WCOWORK approach?

What I don't understand is why XaAES would have to be forked to remove
WCOWORK.  If the application doesn't use it, then its not hurting
anything to have it there.  If Windom doesn't want to support it, then
Windom users won't use it.  Done deal.

I don't see a problem with developing for the user.  The argument that
current NAES and Magic users won't be able to run new software written
to take advantage of the new AES features is quite simply stating a
refusal to advance XaAES in any way.  No new features could be added at
any time - so whats the point?   Might as well use an AES that hasn't
been updated in 10 years - leave XaAES to the people that want to move
forward!

> Personally I just feel it would be a disaster to split XaAES up in separate branches,it would be of benefit
> to absolutely NOONE at all. However, if the alternative is to kill any innovative change to the AES API, 
> then I really think this is the most depressive view of the GEM future I could possibly imagine.

The argument that a new feature won't work with an outdated AES is
exactly killing "any innovative change to the AES API".

> Just my usual 2 cents..

See your 2, and raise you 2.