On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Joshua Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > And "using the best tool for the job" is a common and widespread belief that's > difficult to disagree with,
My point is that "best" can be defined different ways. David enumerated the problems he was trying to solve. Those might be best improved using more mainstream collaboration (wiki, forum) tools. Others have seen this as an opportunity to showcase C::A (even if the result is featureless and doesn't address David's goals). That's "best" for them. > It's about eating your own dog food. But, even the dog-food manufacturers feed their dogs another brand of dog food when their company doesn't make the best dog food for their specific needs. So, it's really about knowing what your needs are, the problem you're trying to solve, and using the best tools. In fact, using a different tool, while appearing to contradict a foolish obsession with consistency could actually lead to greater effort to develop a tool (instead of people talking about it forever). What I'm hearing is a lot of people saying David should eat their dog food. But, it's still going to be David dealing with a wiki that doesn't have a lot of participation, cleaning up spam, etc. Mark ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
