← Back to team overview

unity-design team mailing list archive

Re: Unity extensibility. Was: complaints


On 09. feb. 2012 17:35, Omar B. wrote:

When people first saw Unity they were quite motivated and supposed that it would become the best linux desktop, the one to beat them all, but features come and go constantly. and when people are happy using a feature, Bam! the feature is taken out.

Is like cutting someones arm.

Come on. Comparing a nearly invisible feature to cutting off someones limbs? That's not even rational. If you want to contribute, why can't you instead explain what's so important about the dodge? It was fancy and cool, but I personally haven't ever used it for anything -- and I don't know anyone who has. I sincerely don't understand why people should really miss it so. It was an awesome idea that wasn't so awesome in practice, other than pure bling. If you are of a different opinion, then just explain it. As detailed as possible.

Really, removing features is in many ways like removing apps. Is something delicate, because you need to remove only the apps that you know no one needs and not the main one people are using now.

No, actually, that is two fairly radically different things. Applications are separate entities. GCalctool is not disturbed by the fact that there might be other calculators out there. Features in a program are usually not very separate. For example, I can write a fifty page reply to you now. After all, other readers might have questions that you didn't ask, but that they would theoretically want an answer to. Should I put in all those answers (features) just in case, or should I keep it brief and comprehensible? The exact same effect applies when the text you're reading is source code. More code nearly always means more bugs. It always means more to process, which means slower software. It is also always more difficult to maintain, which means less effort goes to real development.

Jo-Erlend Schinstad

Follow ups