RE: Re: about your concept

I agree.  100%.  Thank you for stating what we're all thinking.  Y-Devel is
not for pissing wars, it's to *discuss* the project and possible
implementation details.  A separate archived mailing list for future project
ideas should be created and all ideas should be discussed there, instead of
wasting everyone's time arguing over them here.

In a selfish, probably naïve, attempt to get things back up again, I'd like
to re-iterate what I've said a week or two ago:  I'd love to do some
development work for this project.

Are we still going ahead with the idea of server-side widgets?  It seems
like a waste to discuss any other option since the groundwork for it is
there in the code and it sounds like a very plausible solution to me.
Others say "it's been discussed to death," but I don't care.  Enough talk.
Let's try it and see how far we get.

As far as transferable widgets go, why bother using an existing
general-purpose bytecode (e.g. ECMA MSIL) to render them?  That just wastes
resources JITting it and calling managed wrapper functions to the painter.
Shouldn't we get right down to the root and develop some kind of minimal
"painter" bytecode that is only capable of drawing?  That way, the server
can recompile the bytecode into a trampoline function containing direct
painter calls for speed and efficiency in rendering custom widgets.  Of
course, for an initial implementation a pure interpreter would suffice.

Comments an discussion welcome.

James Dunne
[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Casey Winans
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:55 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Y-devel] Re: about your concept

This isn't getting anywhere. Andrew has social issues and "I'm 
smart/right and you're not" syndrome. This has been stated before and 
any attempts to make him understand are a waste of time. I'd love to see 
this project succeed but with people like Andrew (although he is very 
smart and competent) single handedly snowballing the project and mailing 
list discussions it is destined to fail.

I could see this project go somewhere if a muzzle was put on Andrew (so 
proper discussion could resume) and he was given a particular task or 
piece of the project (rather than letting him toss code in where and 
when he so chooses).

Mark Thomas obviously doesn't really care about this project or he'd at 
least try to stamp out this little fire by reining Andrew in. I also 
know Mark is very busy but those excuses only go so far; if he wants the 
project to succeed then appoint someone or better yet a few people to 
foster development and discussion.

Casey Winans