Re: [Pan-users] What tells Pan where to save??

[Duncan]

Ima Afrotrap posted on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:39:15 -0600 as excerpted:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:45:34 +0000 (UTC)
> Duncan <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> Heinrich Müller posted on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:07:32 +0100 as excerpted:
>> 
>> > Am 27.11.2012 05:52, schrieb Duncan:
>> >> LOLed at your choice of example! =:^)
>> >>> Being able to copy your config and use it with another account is a
>> >>> good thing.
>> >> I've wondered that before as well.  Heinrich, is that an easy
>> >> change?
>> >>
>> > Yes, I think so, but atm I don't code for pan, I've got other work to
>> > do. I'm planning to implement pan in java btw. But only after I've
>> > fixed some bugs that are in the java version. I think I'll do that in
>> > the next 2-3 weeks.
>> 
>> Ugh.  I hope I missed the sarcasm tags and that's a joke.  Or at least
>> that it'll be gcj buildable and not just runnable in a JVM.
>> 
>> I don't have java VM on my systems ATM as I seldom need it and in
>> general it's more problems than it's worth.  The build-once, run
>> anywhere thing just doesn't fit in a freedomwhere world, where it's
>> simply a poor proprietary workaround to the /normal/ freedomware-world
>> portability case of [freely viewable/modifiable/buildable sources].

>   +1

Reading my reply over again, it does seem a bit more negative than I 
guess I actually am, at least toward the gcj angle.  While all I wrote 
(and what Rialto wrote as well) still goes as far as the JVM, if indeed 
it's buildable with gcj, I'm neutral in general and in fact personally 
very cautiously and preliminarily positive to the idea, since that would 
give me an excuse to get some gcj experience, something I don't have at 
all ATM, but which I believe would be a good thing to have.  OTOH, I do 
think it likely that fewer distros will carry it then, but I could be 
wrong.

Meanwhile, as a dev you of course make your own choices and you remain 
free to do pan in java if you wish.  However, while pan survived Charles 
leaving and came back, I don't believe it'd survive a rewrite to require 
a JVM, except perhaps with the (figuratively) 3-5 users who may be 
interested and actually maintain it in that form.  If it's an experiment 
and the C++ version is intended to continue, fine, I'm all for such 
experiments!  If it's targeted at GCJ, I'm concerned, but will wait and 
see.  If you intend to go JVM only and KHaley or others don't continue 
the C++ version, I really don't expect pan to survive this one.  What we 
once knew as pan will be dead, and it'll take many of the remaining users 
and most distro distribution with it.  Long live pan!

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman