[sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

Peter von Kaehne refdoc at gmx.net
Mon Sep 26 09:43:58 MST 2016

Given that there is, just as Matej points out, likely only "market" space for one library , I think success of your fork will mean exactly this - regression and breakage for those parts you are not interested in. You have made this very clear.

But, I guess, you are not in a mood to listen to this.


Sent from my phone. Apologies for brevity and typos.On 26 Sep 2016 10:27 am, Jaak Ristioja <jaak at ristioja.ee> wrote:
> On 26.09.2016 10:56, Peter von Kaehne wrote: 
> > We are supporting 32 bit devices and operating systems for the foreseeable future.  Emails on sword-support confirm that. 
> I have no problem with Sword doing that. But you can't force Sword++ to 
> do that, unless of course you get involved and help out to maintain 
> support for such devices and environments. Currently Sword++ is 
> prioritizing Linux systems on x86_64 architecture, because that is the 
> only hardware/software environment the only developer (me) has 
> reasonable access to. Second, I am currently prioritizing refactoring 
> over portability to specific platforms because of limited time. 
> Foremost, I intend to write modular, highly portable C++, but not to do 
> all the porting right away. I don't expect x86_32 failures in the near 
> foreseeable future. Support for non-POSIX-like systems like Windows will 
> probably turn most acute, but I guess it will have to wait for someone 
> else to take the lead on that. C++ Filesystem TS and Networking TS might 
> help thou. 
> > I am arguing against careless breakage. 
> None of what is done in Sword++ will break Sword, only perhaps 
> illuminate some things which 
> > Bindings and utilities are an absolute necessity, 32 bit support may well be necessity for a good while longer and the keeping small of the list of compulsory dependencies has reasons too. 
> I prioritize working on the core library over all else. To function 
> efficiently at this stage, I'm currently dropping those from the Sword++ 
> repository to keep it simple and slim. This will help me focus on what I 
> think is more important for Sword++ in this stage. I'm currently keeping 
> the utilities, but may move them to a separate git repository in the 
> future. Making a number of dependencies non-optional also serves the 
> same purpose of helping me to work effectively, given my resource 
> constraints, mostly in time. The build system and code logic for making 
> support of some of those dependencies optional was broken, so it was 
> easier for me to remove that cruft and move on. 
> As I stated in my original announcement: feel free to contribute, feel 
> free to merge code back to Sword. After all, it's open source. :) 
> Many blessings, 
> J 
> _______________________________________________ 
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org 
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel 
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page 

More information about the sword-devel mailing list