From: Blue Lizard (webmaster@dofty.zzn.com)
Date: Mon Mar 25 2002 - 16:35:26 EST
On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 12:33, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> Which is fine. I'll also go suggest that everyone who complains that Abi
> is slow on their PII 233 with 64MB RAM go talk to you about the merits
Are you insane? If you hear this complaint often, dont pay attention.
Abi's performance even on a 166 is PHENOMENAL, esp. compared to other
word processors (I can't think of another that has achieved the
lean-mean-speed-machine state of abiword while maintaining such a
wonderful featureset). Naturally, if you only hear it once, it is
prolly a bug that should be shot :-).
With the slightly older builds (between 0714 and 0961), abi's core speed
was PHENOMENAL. Just a few areas that might take hours (sometimes
literally, others figuratively). Now? I am trying hard to think of an
area where abi's performance is a serious problem and I honestly can't.
> of this argument :) (hrm.. didn't we get this email today???) VMs and
oh?
> interpreted languages are great and certainly have their places. So are
> other compiled languages. The important part is to use the correct tool
> for the job,
AMEN
> and I've seen NO argument (viable and substantiated,
> anyway) for either keeping C++ or moving to another language,
> interpreted or otherwise.
>
>
> The point and main advantage of using C#, in my opinion, would be that
> we wouldn't have to build Yet Another Framework.
>
I, though I daresay speaking as an observer only (much to my dismay),
strongly feel that YAF isn't always ISN'T ALWAYS such a bad thing. A
PITA maybe, but the ends (quoting an email i saw a couple mins ago) do
justify the means.
> Quite frankly, this argument sounds an awful lot like the original "why
> won't abi just do gtk+ and then port gtk+ elsewhere" arguments. Or the
> wxWindows arguments. Or the QT arguments. The difference here is that
> the argument is coming from someone whom I deeply respect and who has
> actually contributed to the project in a meaningful way.
>
> The fact is that Mono is immature and slow, if it even works at all.
> Last time I checked, it only works on ia32 linux systems, and poorly at
> that. C# has no runtime or virtual machine to speak of on Solaris, BSD,
> MacOS, QNX, BeOS, and arguably Linux. Its gui classes are malformed and
Feel free to spawn another thread from this damned taker-over-of-the-ml
but what is the status, and prognosis, of qnx/beos support? Just how
many of these users have we (as a community)?
> misadjusted, especially with regard to its container classes (or total
> lack thereof).
>
> Mono is also being built with many of the same tools and programming
> languages as Evolution, which took 10x the manpower that was originally
> expected. Should we expect a pattern here? I honestly don't know and I
> do hope for the best. But I'm a youthful optimist.
Wisdomatically not so youthful as you think, but yes. Beware this.
>
> Should we change? Quite frankly, I don't know. But I'd rather spend the
You are certainly not alone *points at crowd*.
> rest of eternity in this bugfixing feature-freeze hell than rewriting
> yet another framework and starting everything from scratch. There are
Agreed, but it would be so gratifying (sp?) once the beast was
(mal)formed.
> proven and tested frameworks out there. Let's use them.
Agreed, but do not be wary of modification.
>
> Dom
^^^^^A man I highly respect.
Sincerest regards
-MG
-- http://www.openmosix.org - Because mosix should be open source.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 25 2002 - 16:36:13 EST