* Neil Schemenauer wrote [2006-03-06 14:30:27 -0700]: > I guess either people are happy or they left for other frameworks.
Happy, but spending more time of late with Quixote cousin QP. > It seems to me that Quixote is losing a marketing war with other > frameworks. That's a shame because I think Quixote does a lot of > things well. There is something to be said for marketing. Not sure what, but something ;-) > At this point the only major changes I would make would be to make > it more modular and more library like. Ideally, QP could be built > using components from Quixote. The restructuring would probably > consist of backwards incompatible changes and I'm not sure the > community is up for that. That's an interesting thought whether it goes anywhere or not. What I like about QP is that it makes some decisions; I'd always loved big chunks of Dulcinea and some of those made it to QP (site management). I don't mind QP being *nix specific and Durus dependent. QP as a superset of Qx, on the surface sounds like a nice idea but is there any support for doing the actual work and suffering the migration pain? _______________________________________________ Quixote-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
