mlennert at club.worldonline.be
Wed Feb 21 10:38:09 EST 2007
On 21/02/07 16:16, Radek Bartoň wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 of February 2007 15:19:55 Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>> So I assume it is a fork, which is generally a Bad Thing.
>> May I ask you why forking, and which development forces do you have to
>> carry on what appears a daunting task?
>> All the best.
> If it is fork depends on what is definition of fork. Generally it should be
> independent project which would provide modern programming framework for
> analytical modules similar to that in current GRASS. So any user which is
> used to work with GRASS command line would be familiar with new system but
> inside it'will use completely new design oriented to OOP, extensibility,
> parallelity and dynamic languages. Theoretically it should be compatible with
> any GRASS's GUI developed over modules in the future.
> IMHO a current state of core parts of GRASS is so unogranizes and oldstyled
> that any progressive development is very difficult. That is why I think that
> start from scratch and only take good ideas from GRASS is now the best
> solution how to make a 21th century open-source GIS realizable.
> For next one year I'll be working on making its design and prototype
> implementation as my diploma work so even if this project wouldn't keep up it
> would be at least a research of GIS domain. I have spoken with a few current
> GRASS developers and they invite my ideas so I wish it won't happen.
> Only support from comunity I miss for now are discussion of ideas and needs of
> features but any kind of help or invention is welcomed.
You might want to look at Thierry's work on KerGIS
(http://www.kergis.com/en/index.html) who decided not to work within the
GRASS dev community with the current GRASS code for some of the same
reasons you mention. However, he does not seem to be going the same
direction you are in terms of language and programming choices.
More information about the grass-dev