Future of teamwork plugin

mchouinard mchouinard at mcrd.ath.cx
Tue Jul 3 23:14:49 UTC 2007

On Tuesday 03 July 2007 18:38:30 David Nolden wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 22:43:02 schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
> > stable != not crashing, but I think you're aware of that.
> Of course I know that. That's why I added the "not crashing".
> > It is dead code and I think one of the issues we wanted to avoid in
> > KDevelop4 is carrying dead code around. What is so bad about moving the
> > plugin to a (quite popular) place in playground?
> Dead code is relative.. just because noone works on something for half a
> year doesn't mean it's dead, else kdevelop-3.4 would be 90% dead since
> years.
> > Its not in a working state right now, except on your and my system. That
> > is it doesn't compile against boost 1.33.1. Its also in a non-working
> > state on at least 1 platform other than linux and yes IMHO that counts
> > wether KDE4/win32 happens for 4.0 or for 4.1.
> It does compile with boost 1.33.1, that's what I developed it with. You're
> maybe referring to a problem with the ubuntu feisty boost-packages, they
> are broken(dapper worked, and gutsy works too, that's why I had to
> upgrade).
> It also doesn't compile with amd64 because of a bug in boost(cannot
> serialize 64-bit integers on 64-bit systems). But that can be workarounded
> easily. Stays windows..
> mathieu:
> > "the only future I can see for this plugin is a rewrite ... I don't know
> about it but maybe also a redesign ... "
> Rewrite, redesign? What exactly is wrong about the design? Imo, the design
> of the networking-library is great, I'm proud of it. It is easy,
> multithreaded, safe, powerful. I wouldn't do it different now, except that
> I'd use qt.
> Your statement shows that you haven't understood anything about the design.
> That's probably my fault. I've created a imo good system, but probably
> missed out documenting it enough for others to think the same about it. The
> whole thing may be a little messy in some places, but mostly It's good in
> my opinion. I've used advanced features of C++ to make the code cleaner and
> safer.
> It may need a little time to understand some of the things, but once you
> did, you would see how cool it is. I do not have the feeling that anyone
> really tried understanding the stuff and maybe even learn some new
> concepts, but instead just start yelling as soon as they see something that
> does not look like the usual kde/qt code.
> However, since noone likes it, you can move it into playground Adreas.
> greetings, David
> _______________________________________________
> KDevelop-devel mailing list
> KDevelop-devel at kdevelop.org
> https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel
David, I understand what you're saying. 
It's just for the past few years I had to read a lot of code because of the 
contracting nature of my work and I might not understand those "advanced 
features" but for me, when I have to spend more than 15 to 30 minutes on a 
method to understand it's purpose and how it does it, it's a sign that the 
code could be a lot more simplier. Yes I'm one of those people that believe 
that code sould follow the KISS paradime (?). this mean some times we have to 
make a trade off between the use of advanced features which might help you
doing your job more quickly but might be seen for the common of the mortal as
"obscure" or as black magic. 

Marge, there's just too much pressure, what with my job, the kids, traffic
snarls, political strife at home and abroad.  But I promise you, the second
all of those things go away, we'll have sex.

		-- Homer Simpson
		   Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy

More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list