On 2013-05-28 17:32, Steve McMahon wrote:> For anyone who's reading this
exchange who hasn't worked with recent
> releases of Dexterity, I'd like to put all this in perspective. All, of
> course, my humble opinion, but informed by experience using, documenting
> and training our toolset.
>
> 1) Dexterity's features — right now — work better than Archetypes.
> (Admittedly, Dexterity is not as feature complete.) It's faster,
> cleaner, more flexible and more testable.
This is true for all core use cases. If it comes to corner cases (i.e.
multilingual in combination with references and a widget for this) this
is not true.
Anyway, Dexterity is so much better than everything we had before, I
really have to say thanks to all the people behind its development.
> 2) Dexterity's documentation is — right now — in better shape than the
> Archetypes docs. That's in part because it hasn't been exposed to so
> much entropy.
AT docs were in a good state some years ago. At some point they were
moved around, formatting was lost, AT evolved w/o editing docs and so
on. And nowadays nobody has interest to fix this. This is fine. I
shouted "Archtypes must die" loud the last years. Lets get rid of it.
Dexterity docs are - right now - compared to archtypes docs - right now
- better. But what comparasion is this?
> 3) Dexterity is — right now — more trainable than Archetypes.
Indeed, if you skip pointing people to docs. If you explain everything
yourself, pointing people to working code, yes.
> Does this mean everything's shiny and fine? Of course not. Lots left to
> do. And suggestions, bug tickets, and even gripes that swim in petulant
> bad attitude are welcome. But, let's not lose perspective on the overall
> situation.
+1
Jens
--
Klein & Partner KG, member of BlueDynamics Alliance
_______________________________________________
Product-Developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-product-developers
