[GRASS-dev] Re: a better console and better diff

[Michael Barton]

On Dec 17, 2009, at 10:00 AM, grass-dev-request at lists.osgeo.org wrote:

> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:31:06 +0100
> From: Martin Landa <landa.martin at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: a better console and better diff
> To: Michael Barton <michael.barton at asu.edu>
> Cc: "grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org" <grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org>,    Tim
>        Michelsen <timmichelsen at gmx-topmail.de>
> Message-ID:
>        <f8fe65c40912170731q75654b8aq4b1105ed9fd7dda5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 2009/12/17 Michael Barton <michael.barton at asu.edu>:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> 
>>> +1 add support for MDI
>> 
>> -1 for MDI. Most modern software has abandoned the multiple document interface. It means creating a smaller desktop-like window and putting all the program windows into this smaller desktop. So there is less room to see the windows than if they are just on your
> 
> -1 for optional DI? Sorry I am not getting the point. User should have
> a option to decide if to use SDI or MDI. Personally I prefer SDI, but
> it's not the point.

Adding an MDI and getting all GRASS windows inside requires substantial programming and could limit other options, like docked control and display windows, which more people have asked for. This programming would require maintenance and debugging. The GUI is a huge programming effort. A year ago, it was over 40,000 lines of code and I suspect it is now over 50,000. Many new things added to this complex system create new and unexpected bugs due to the many interactions. That is, there is a cost to anything new added that needs to be weighed against its potential benefits in providing a better user experience. Though one or two people have mentioned MDI, I have not heard a loud clamor for this kind of interface. While an optional MDI could be added, in this case I feel that the short and long term costs outweigh any benefits. Hence the -1.

Michael