kwallet and QCA

[Jakob Petsovits]

On Saturday, 14. June 2008, nf2 wrote:
> Michael Pyne wrote:
> > Wait wait wait. You will never understand why developers do not want
> > to replace code which is working and well understood with code which
> > is untested and has a different interface?
>
> No, i meant this programming language "don't use/like" statement.

Doing Free Software development is all about loving to write that code.
Now if you have to use constructs that are different to others used in that 
same piece of code, with different concepts and object hierarchies, then that 
increases the disgust about writing such code.

For KDE (and Qt) as a platform, pleasing the developers is an important goal, 
one that might override other important goals even if those others have 
direct advantages in terms of whatever user-visible stuff. Maybe some of that 
gap can be closed with bindings like was nicely done for D-Bus, but the 
developers need to stay happy with such a solution.

They are KDE's most important capital, and if they love writing code for 
KDE/Qt then our platform and desktop environment will keep improving.
That's why seemingly irrational reasonings like the language one make sense 
even though they can't be measured in "hard facts".

If you want to get KDE to adopt stuff then you need to find a way to make
KDE developers love your stuff. Not lots of end users, not fd.o, not GNOME.
Having those as additional backing is nice, but won't be enough.