PCA, that's not meant to be a personal offence. Still, I feel your
statement needs correction:

2012/5/12 pca <[email protected]>:
> Leading edge is very interesting. "Bloody bleeding edge" is not really
> synonymous with stable releases, AFAIK.

The quote on http://pyjs.org says, GWT = bleeding edge. So, is GWT unstable?
Relax! You can still go back to COBOL and Fortran, ADA may also be an
option. Or write a Java applet. I've heard that ABAP is also fun
programming.

Seriously, if you have a better quote why not present it here, or add
it to (your forked copy of) pyjs.github.com directly?

I don't mean to criticise your crititcs. We need to be responsible
though in tearing down what was built in the past. If we want to be a
good community we should do better than the average: figure out what
was the goal of the original creator and try to match or merge them
with yours!
Such a -- e.g. quote -- may have the potential to be better than yours
_and_ the old alone.

Peter

> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:42:41 PM UTC+2, peter.bittner wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm,
>>
>> >> If so, I welcome the change. I was really put off some time ago by the
>> >> quote
>> >> of Brian on the front page of pyjs.org. Maybe it's time to remove it.
>> >>  Maybe
>> >> it's time for me to consider using pyjs.
>> >
>> > i think you are probably right, and that is a great point.  welcome
>> > (back?) to the party.  you can make a pull req on github if you like,
>> > else i'll fixup sometime tomorrow/weekend.
>>
>> Why all this will for destruction? What is actually wrong with the
>> quote of Brian (whoever this person is)? In my eyes this is great
>> marketing talk making the project interesting to try out. I don't
>> think "bloody bleeding edge" - when paired with stable releases - is
>> necessarily something wrong.
>>
>> Let's no overreact. Welcome everyone who is interested (again) in
>> Pyjs, but also welcome everyone who liked Pyjs as it was before the
>> change (aka Pyjamas). We all should be in one boat, even with
>> different points of view.
>>
>> No offence,
>> Peter

Reply via email to