[News.eclipse.foundation] Re: E4 / SWT 4.0

[Eric Rizzo <eclipse-news@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Boris Bokowski wrote:
> "Eric Rizzo" <eclipse-news@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
> > However, again using myself as an example, there are just often 
> > fundamental differences of attitude/philosophy/perspective that make it 
> > frustrating to break into the clique' of a project. My (least) favorite 
> > example is the SWT/JFace philosophy of minimalism coupled with 
> > backwards-compatibility-at-ALL-cost; it leads to these frameworks carrying 
> > a lot of baggage that makes them simultaneously difficult to extend and 
> > prone to excessive copy+paste coding. I do understand the driving forces 
> > that led to that prevailing philosophy, but I see too much dogmatism in 
> > some areas and too little flexibility in others. This is an example of a 
> > situation where I can try to contribute various artifacts (from code to 
> > design idea to behavioral change suggestions) but be thwarted at nearly 
> > every attempt because of the philosophical differences (or merely 
> > differences in the degree of philosophical dogma).
>
> It is hard to argue against you when you claim that people on the SWT or 
> JFace teams are dogmatic.  When I perceive people as dogmatic, I like to err 
> on the safe side and assume that there are good reasons for their behaviour 
> or belief that I just don't understand yet. Until I understand all the 
> reasons, at which point it is much easier to discuss concrete technical 
> points rather than calling someone dogmatic. (Then there is the possibility 
> that someone is dogmatic for no good reason, but is extremely rare IMO.)

If you are trying to "argue against" me then you have missed my point 
entirely (probably mostly due to my inability to express it 
effectively). This is not supposed to be an argument; rather, it is 
supposed to be an honest exchange of observations and perspectives (at 
least, that is the direction in which I am hoping to take it).
My fundamental point behind this discussion is to raise awareness that 
the attitudes of argument and defending are contributing to the 
barrier-to-entry for community members to become contributors. I respect 
the work the various project teams have done and continue to do, but 
also think they need a bit of notice that one of the reasons they don't 
get more contributors is because of the attitudes and the difficulty in 
breaking into the "inner circle" of acceptance as a contributor.

I'm very grateful that at least some of the project leads are 
participating in this discussion, but would like to see more, and, more 
importantly, am dismayed if you think you need to argue with me because 
that means I'm obviously not adequately expressing the points I want to.

Eric