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