[Sugar-devel] Duplication of effort

[Jim Simmons]

Benjamin,

I would agree on not having QT in Sugar.  I use both QT and GTK
programs under Linux and while some QT programs are superior to their
GTK counterparts it isn't the toolkit that makes them superior.  I too
don't see much future in sugarizing existing QT or GTK apps.  Running
something like that is a bit like buying Windows 3.1 and using it to
multitask MS-DOS apps.

With webkit the situation is a bit more complex.  Having Read support
the epub format would be a big win for Sugar.  If webkit is the best
way to make that happen (I can't say it is or it isn't) it might be
worthwhile.

James Simmons


> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:38:41 -0400
> From: "Benjamin M. Schwartz" <bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu>
> Subject: [Sugar-devel] Duplication of Effort: Don't do it.
> To: Sugar Devel <sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>
> Message-ID: <4A6DE621.40209 at fas.harvard.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I have lately seen a lot of duplication of effort in Sugar.  I think this
> is bad.  The success of Sugar demands discipline and careful planning from
> its developers.
>
> In particular, I am arguing that supporting Qt or Webkit would be a
> terrible idea, and that neither should be permitted to be a dependency of
> the Sugar platform.  However, my argument is certainly more general.