Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Peter> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >>> I have no idea why you think having just one frontend is some kind >>> of silver bullet. > > Peter> Ever heard about "lowest common denominator"? When you use more > Peter> front ends you could only support these features which are > Peter> supported by all frontends (e.g. dockable toolbars: possible > Peter> with Qt4 but lyx doesn't support it). > > This is typically something that could go in one frontend only.
But why are there no free toolbars in the Qt4 frontend? It cost you nothing in a Qt only application, they are there by default. > Peter> I think it totally slows down the development progress. > > .. in part because it forces one to think how a features should be > implemented. Not bad, IMO. Not bad as theoretical exercises, but good for real world application? > Peter> And nothing is more boring than using obsolete tools. (You > Peter> could force developers to do so only when they get your money, > Peter> but in a open source project this does not work.) > > Something that is more boring for me is being forced to update my > distribution to get the version of the day. I use mandrake 10.1 here, > and I am not going to use it with a version of qt which is not the > same as what my KDE uses. Different people have different needs. > For such people we could ship lyx with the frontend library, this needs less work than supporting several frontends. > Peter> I have no idea why most people here think it is a good idea to > Peter> support more than one frontend when there is one which fits all > Peter> needs. > > The last part of you assertion is the weakest link. This was Lars question, not mine, I' inverted it only.
