Re: aterm and menu vote( Reasoning )
J.D. Jordan (jdj5e@virginia.edu)
Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:57:29 -0500 (EST)
Ok, then I change my vote to dropit completely (I guess I should read all
the posts before responding to stuff...)
JD
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Sasha Vasko wrote:
> Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >
> > Keep it as a runtime configuration option. What reasons were the ICQ bunch giving for trashing it?
> >
> Reasons were :
> I'd like to keep aterm as small and clean as possible, as the
> result I'd like to drop
> features that are never used.
> I know that this is the compile time option, but this are
> reasons to drop it at all:
>
> 1. There more code is in there - the harder it is to add new
> features and ensure
> bug free operation.
> 2. Even thou it is compile time option - some code for this
> feature make it in to
> executable even if you turn it off.
>
> I don't want to go the "the more - the better" way, and I don't
> want to keep fetures
> that are never used.
> The menubar feature IMHO is redundand, and I personally cant
> think of any way of
> using this.
> So please tell me if anybody is using this feature, or planning
> on using it tomorrow
>
> Regards
>
>
> Sasha Vasko
> aterm maintainer
>
>
>
> > --
> > WWW: http://www.afterstep.org/
> > FTP: ftp://ftp.afterstep.org/
> > MAIL: http://www.caldera.com/linuxcenter/forums/afterstep.html
>
> --
> WWW: http://www.afterstep.org/
> FTP: ftp://ftp.afterstep.org/
> MAIL: http://www.caldera.com/linuxcenter/forums/afterstep.html
>
>
--
WWW: http://www.afterstep.org/
FTP: ftp://ftp.afterstep.org/
MAIL: http://www.caldera.com/linuxcenter/forums/afterstep.html