Re: Changing gui->AppKit, base->Foundation... etc...

[Gregory Casamento]

Wolfgang,

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Wolfgang Lux <address@hidden> wrote:
> Gregory Casamento wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Richard Frith-Macdonald
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 Nov 2010, at 20:24, Gregory Casamento wrote:
>>>
>>>> Guys,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to change the names of these things to things that both
>>>> Cocoa and OpenStep developers are more familiar with.   It would be
>>>> nice to have them as Foundation/AppKit and etc.   This would make it
>>>> easier to talk about GNUstep with people without having to constantly
>>>> say "base, GNUstep's version of Foundation" and the like.
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on a patch to make this happen, but I would like to know
>>>> if anyone has any misgivings about this before I commit it.
>>>
>>> Well it rather depends on what you mean by changing the names.  I think
>>> it's fine to talk
>>> about GNUstep Foundation and GNUstep AppKit (probably we often do that
>>> already).
>>
>> I'm only talking about changing the names in the repository so that it
>> becomes more obvious to developers what is what.
>
> Do you have any evidence that developers have difficulties understanding
> what -base and -gui are? And that changing the svn repo names would help
> them?

Yes, the fact that I always have to explain what "base" and "gui" are.
 It seems to stand to reason that naming after their Cocoa
counterparts would alleviate any confusion.

> Also, did you consider that changing these names will break any packaging
> system that builds from svn?

Yes, I did. :)

> And how would you explain that people still need -back if they have
> Foundation and AppKit?

The same way I do now, but without ALSO having to explain what both
base and gui are.

> In the end, I think what really counts are not names and buzzwords, but the
> quality of GNUstep libraries (i.e., stability and completeness) and
> applications and the ease of installation. As we say in German, "Namen sind
> Schall und Rauch" (don't known the equivalent phrase in English, but maybe
> somebody could enlighten me).

Indeed.   The quality of the libraries does speak for itself.
Unfortunately, I have little or no faith in the community at large to
find it's way in GNUstep.   There's no telling how many new developers
we've lost due to:

1) Unclear names
2) Unclear documentation
3) Out of date information on the main website.
4) Out of date information on the wiki.

>From experience, developers today are a fickle bunch.  If they have to
spend more than 5 minutes looking something over or trying to set it
up, they will abandon it if it's not that easy.  I don't want to see
one more developer or user lost to Cocotron in this way... nor do I
want to see any more developers come on to the gnustep channel on
FreeNode who are upset and can't seem to get things working because
our documentation is out of date.

It's not about buzzword or any b.s. like that.  What it's about is
making it easy for developers who don't have any experience with
GNUstep so that this project can get a much needed boost.

Do I have any "evidence" that we will get that.  No... I don't, but
I'm trying everything I can in order to make this project a little bit
more appealing to people other than the small group we have here.
I'm tired of GNUstep being, more or less, a "boutique" project for
people who "get it."   It's time to make it easier, really.

Conduct an experiment for yourself:  Pretend you're a novice user who
knows nothing about GNUstep and try to get things working relying on
the information you have at your disposal on the website.  Better yet,
get a friend who is a developer, but not familiar with GNUstep to set
it up.   That should illustrate to you just how daunting a task we
have set before our audience.

> Wolfgang

Later, GC
-- 
Gregory Casamento - GNUstep Lead/Principal Consultant, OLC, Inc.
yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa
(240)274-9630 (Cell)