Title

  • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Hmmh, to me rewriting something means something like writing it again, or revising it. But it’s entirely new, not based on the predecessor, they didn’t have the old code or architecture in mind and it ended up in a different place with different features. So I don’t see a “re-”, just a “write”. I’d say it’s the same category of software (display servers / -protocols) but entirely different and independent from each other. I’d use the word ‘rewrite’ if they were dependent on each other in some form or if one was meant to replicate the other one.

    • kevincox
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think that’s generally the point of a rewrite. To start from scratch with a better architecture. If you weren’t changing the architecture then you can probably just keep incrementally improving it.

      • elauso@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        When you do a rewrite you want to create the same product as before just with better code / architecture. That’s not what Wayland tries to do.

      • zarkony@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, but the word rewrite implies that it would serve the same function and retain compatibility.

        If someone wrote a new implementation of the x protocol, as a drop in replacement for the existing x.org server, you might call that a rewrite.

        Wayland is an entirely different solution to the same problem. It doesn’t follow the x protocol, and doesn’t maintain compatibility with the x.org server.