[GRASS5] Proposed process for GRASS reorganization (please read)

[Malcolm Blue]

strobe anarkhos wrote:

> 
> Several reasons:
> 
> a) GRASS developers know C already. If we create a GRASS framework in Foundation, prior GRASS contributors will only need to learn a minuscule number if syntax additions.

Most also know several other languages, but understand when each one is 
applicable.

I don't really see the advantage.  Everything I've seen suggested by you 
can be done in many different languages.  Most of it isn't hard with 
some of the tools available now.  Maybe we could have a framework of the 
month!

But seriously, every new grass initiative has probably started with 
someone developing an idea, getting it into working shape, and providing 
it to the group for comment.  A proof of concept or prototype to let 
people see what you are proposing would be a good idea.  This would be 
easier to discuss if there was more than conceptual examples.

> 
> b) FSF has a working Java bridge for GNUStep Foundation. Ask a Java developer what Python is he'll tell you it's a constrictor with heat-seeking pits. We may hate Java but we can't ignore their numbers, to do so would be like the Romans ignoring the Barbarians.

We don't all hate Java.  It has its place (which maybe is as Sun first 
envisioned: small appliances) and we use it accordingly for trivial 
applications, ie. applets - ( just kidding).  Java obviously has 
strengths and weaknesses - but so do all of the languages I've learned 
over the 20+ years I've been programming.  Personally, I didn't see 
anything great about Objective-C when I tried it.  It was just another 
OO language.  Maybe we should all step back and relearn smalltalk and 
prolog?   As long as no one suggests COBOL or BASIC, I will probably 
consider the idea.

Check out the grass source a little further and you will find that Java 
is already part of the development.

> 
>> Let me also through in the round that there are several free
>> software project out there trying to develop the next generation GIS.
>> Chjeck freegis.org  (ossim, openmap, fmaps, ...)
>> If we are not satisfied with how GRASS is going, we should consider
>> to evalutate the other projects and try to avoid their mistakes
>> first before starting our own rewrite.
> 
> 
> Well I think a GIS framework based on Foundation would be very useful to everybody involved, and anybody in any other GIS project can contribute to it. I didn't have to propose it to GRASS developers, but I thought it was a good a place as any to start.

It has sparked some interest but it has to be weighed against other 
alternatives already proposed.  Python is probably a better choice for 
many people, since it is flexible, is becoming widely recognized and is 
available on most platforms.  But then again so are C, C++, Java, 
Pascal, Fortran (oops), smalltalk, etc. and all of the various 
frameworks developed for programming in those languages. 

Most of us are more concerned about the functionality than the 
development language.  I'm referring to the core functionality and the 
breadth of applications supported.  Grass can be used in a wide variety 
of disciplines because of the flexibility in the programs and the 
adaptability of the interfaces.  Until you can prove significant 
advantage - to users rather than developers - you will have a hard time 
convincing anyone to consider a change in approach.

Speaking for myself, I don't think you've done enough planning to 
seriously suggest a major change.  There are a lot of development 
languages that offer user interface and programmability advantages.  
Maybe Foundation does.  I don't know.  Having worked in mapping and GIS 
for 15+ years, these are only a couple of the things that I consider.  
What I want is a set of tools that can take just about any kind of 
geographic data and do spatial analysis as appropriate for the task at 
hand and the data available.  If you've spent the time to learn what 
grass can do, and looked at the development plans you will see that this 
is either available now or in the goals for version 5.1.  Also in the 
development plans are user interface enhancements, layer controls, etc.  
I expect that most of the improvements that you foresee from your 
reorganization are somewhere in the of 'to-dos' for the future.  They've 
just prioritized differently than you would have done.

As a newcomer to the grass development group, I can't speak for every 
one, but I think that if you want to suggest enhancements, most of us 
are willing to consider them.  Each will be prioritized and worked on 
accordingly.  Everyone is of course free to choose their own development 
path, and contribute where they feel appropriate.  Markus is leading the 
effort, but has been setting the goals with input from the developers.  
If your ideas are valid, you will get support.  Until you provide real 
plans for improvement (please don't submit a 50 page manifesto to the 
list - if you have such a document give us the link!) no one can agree 
to any thing.

> 
>> Let me also add that I am not sure that we have enough resources to
>> actually do all the changes Strobe has proposed.
> 
> 
> Use the right license and who knows how many developers can help, I know I would feel much more inclined.

Licenses were in the other thread.  But since you brought it up, I 
suspect LGPL would lose more developers than it would gain.  Most GPL 
projects seem to be doing quite nicely.  I think that the biggest 
attraction is the ability take take part in the direction the software 
will take.  Most users are wanting the product of the software, not the 
software.

Malcolm



---------------------------------------- 
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo at geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'