Re: [bug-gtypist] further future of gtypist

[Felix Natter]

clutton <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 20:09 +0100, Felix Natter wrote:
>> hello clutton,
>> hello Tim,

hello clutton,

>> How about converting the code to C++ classes while refactoring, I
>> would
>> help with this!
>
> It could be simpler then refactoring, but a lot of C++ typing tutors
> are already exist. My vote is for plain C but with modern codding
> techniques C99 or even C11 [although nothing interesting in C11, or I
> missed something :)] and just refactoring/rewriting pieces.

I still think that OO is important / state of the art for application
programs. But it's your choice.

> More relying on std and syscalls then implementing things by ourselves,
> DESIGN!!! and self speaking code with intention of "less lines and more
> design".

Sounds good :-)

> It wouldn't be ideal at the end: time-resources-knowledge, it never is,
> but making it good just in C would be cool IMHO.

I agree it's worth it. Let's go ahead (maybe on a separate branch?)!

>> When doing this, we can get away with the typeahead and word
>> processor
>> features. I agree with clutton [2] that these are useless, since
>> every
>> word processor / editor has its own heuristics (or none at all) here!
>> 
>> [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gtypist/2016-10/msg00003.h
>> tml

Do you agree with me here? Unfortunately, we cannot directly ask the
users (except the few on this list, but even they rarely state their
opinion).

Cheers and Best Regards,
-- 
Felix Natter