This thread was about freeing “LeoJS”, but it looks like I waded into an area that didn’t seem controversial at all. Namely, that the new product was built to replace the old. All the past announcements made clear that it was a matter of when, not if: These are from memory, not verbatim quotes, but should be close enough. - LeoJS is the future of Leo - Such and such is the “final release” of Leo - The Visual Studio Code team has far far greater resources for building user interfaces Etc. And I suggested (and suggest) that sooner is better than later for reasons given. Now it’s being stated that “this isn’t going to happen”. Well exactly what is being planned then? If there were ever a time for coy dismissive one liners, that time is long past. Why create FUD on this project? Why build up all this excitement and have sweat poured into building a replacement and then not believe in it enough to stand solidly behind it? Make it make sense.
On Saturday, July 6, 2024 at 6:56:46 PM UTC+7 Edward K. Ream wrote: > On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 5:32 AM Inspired Mars <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Do you now see how freeing it is to completely separate the two? > > No. > > > IMHO, the legacy app ought to be retired as soon as possible. > > This isn't going to happen. > > Edward > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/17c7e864-7cdb-4e0b-b200-91512477308an%40googlegroups.com.
