[sword-devel] No, not new! Re: a MacSword review

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Chris Little wrote:

> Personally I'm just looking forward to the Windows version of BibleTime.
> Until then, I'll make do with BibleCS as it is.

Great! I have also thought that BT could be good candidate for a popular
Windows frontend and even replacement for BibleCS.

What do we want from THE Sword frontend? My thoughts:
1) interface is familiar to Windows users
2) it doesn't differ too much from BibleCS
3) easy to use, interface is designed carefully and with time
4) offers those useful features which users have seen in other apps
5) easy to install (like BibleCS)
6) small size

Technically, behind the scenes:
7) uses all Sword features
8) gives the lib developers an opportunity to closely interact with
   user interface and frontend (I have understood that BibleCS is kind
   of a first place to deploy new features)

What BibleCS lacks:
9) platform and vendor independent development
10) easy i18n
11) advanced UI library (Borland? Advanced? oh please...)
12) modern looking and stylish user interface (icons and colors are from
    80's)

Qt is an answer to numbers 1, 9, 10 and 11. It's as "native" as any
Windows toolkit and doesn't have any extra unix-derived dependencies.
it's modern, has advanced widgets and features, can be
compiled with Free tools...

BibleTime is not an answer to 2, 4, 6, 8, maybe 7. But this depends on
the direction BT is taking. The most crucial question is (in my opinion)
if BT will have all those features which average users around the world
want. This includes Angloamerican English speaking users, and I'm afraid
they are the majority of all users (or does Crosswire have some
statistics of BibleCS user base?). Read the BibleTime wiki
http://devel.bibletime.info/wiki/Bibletime2_Planning, especially Goals
and 'discussion' to understand the future of BT.

Is it possible to think about another Qt based frontend? Technically it
would use Qt's own simple HTML engine (not huge WebKit), no database, no
other i18n than Qt's own system and frontend, no other backends than
Sword. For end users it would be replacement for and competitor of other
Windows Bible applications (which BibleTime doesn't want to be). It
would be smaller (maybe three or even six times?) than BT and codebase
would be simpler.

It would be great if there would be only one cross-platform frontend
which could be the one for Windows users. We don't have enough
volunteers to fork code and efforts. I have always liked BibleTime and
will help it in the future (though the other frontend projects are great
and important too!), but another frontend may still be an option.

  Yours,
	Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
	e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)