Re: A proposal on GTK2 and GTK3 .ui files

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Ingo Brückl <ib@wupperonline.de> wrote:
>
> Dominic Lachowicz wrote on Wed, 9 May 2012 13:02:02 -0400:
>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Ingo Brückl <ib@wupperonline.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hubert Figuière wrote on Wed, 09 May 2012 09:03:48 -0700:
>>>
>>>> Simply put that way, because we are gonna drop Gtk2 anyway, it is
>>>> pointless to spend more time on this.
>>>
>>> Why would we do this?
>
>> Because it's expensive & error-prone to maintain multiple platforms.
>
> We're already maintaining three completely different platforms, and there
> should really be a problem with a slightly different toolkit on one platform?
>
> Ingo

The Mac and Windows ports are often (unfortunately) afterthoughts and
aren't on-par with the GTK+ port. I also think that there's something
to be desired from our particular approach at cross-platform
portability. What I think you'll see with the GTK2 port is exactly
what we see happen with Windows and OSX today - namely, the platforms
drift apart from each other, may no longer even build, and it will
eventually take a Herculean effort to make things work well again.

But there are at least 2 better arguments against it:

* Just because there's already other debt around doesn't mean you
should add more to the pile
* The onus of proof is on the one proposing to do something. So, we
don't need to prove to you why you shouldn't maintain both. You need
to prove to us why it's a good idea to do so.

Best regards,

-- 
"I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization." --  Oliver Wendell Holmes