Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.

[Tim Harrison]

Hey Jeff.

It's odd to be arguing with you without it being in real time, but I'll 
give it a shot... ;)

Jeff Teunissen wrote:

> I don't know about that...I rather like 'Apps'. 'Applications' has a
> pretentious "feel" to it.


I certainly don't see it as pretention.  More of a consistency issue. 
GNUstep uses "Library" and "Libraries", as well as "Documentation" and 
"Developer".  Those are not short forms.  I don't see why one needs to 
shorten "Applications" to "Apps".  I feel that Apps sounds too 
nonchalant.  It's not intended to be pretentious, but to be descriptive.

> I think the idea is that the GNUstep Libraries/ directory ought to be split
> out into Foundation, AppKit, etc. frameworks. From the point of view of coding
> a GNUstep app, they already are frameworks (ref. NSBundle), while a "library"
> needn't be within the GNUstep hierarchy at all.


Once again, we agree here.  Frameworks are Good[tm]. :)


--

Tim Harrison
harrison@timharrison.com
http://www.linuxstep.org/