On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Jorge Vargas <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Tycon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> to me it seems like a waste of time to deal with some poorly written, >> poorly documented, poorly supported >> library that someone wrote with not much effort. Funny thing people >> spend way more time trying to figure out and >> use these libraries then either the time it took to write them or the >> time they can write their own (or use something >> better). "Tosca" especially is silly since there are many more serious >> widget libraries such as YUI. > > I can see your frustration, and yes some of them are hard to get when > you start, but calling them a waste of effort isn't right. For > example. Your ToscaWidgets assertion is totally wrong, YUI is a > client-side library, while TW is server-side. So learn before you > criticize. > > So I suggest you either keep the discussion to "how can they be > improved" or "asking smart questions" or simply stop posting because > this is trollish behavior. As you bring nothing productive. > > Last but not least this is pylons, over here everything is optional. > No one told you to use any of them.
One thing that might be nice with Pylons, is if each optional component had a rating system that included attributes such as: difficulty to learn: full test coverage: documentation: downloads/popularity: It seems like a community rating system could help communicate to both the author of the component, and the potential developer what is going on. Like an ebay of sorts. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
