| I feel a bit responsible for kicking off the rather lengthy discussion over the past couple of days. I don't mean for this post to make it go on for several more. Two different sides and several in the middle have been represented. Despite the angst some are feeling, I for one feel more informed and have a better feel for the pulse of the list. I don't think it's as black and white as you suggest, Alex. You call it FUD, but as it's most often used, the term connotes a slanted view of the world with the intent of distracting listeners from something else. That's NOT what I see here. The views expressed are valid, real-world concerns from development managers who want to see Scriptaculous succeed, and need to be addressed. As you said, in order to trust the future of the project we need to know a road-map exists. Asking for one--however inelegantly worded--isn't FUD. Addressing the uncertainties makes the project stronger. Yes, parts of some of the emails are a but "fuddy," but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. To summarize the concerns I've heard from others on the list, (and remember, because they are relevant to me): Prototype P1. Is it actively being developed? (Will the $$() improvements be in the next version? When is that?) P2. I want to contribute, but can't. It's frustrating. P3. The project is too big for a single person. P4. The file is too big; can it be be better compartmentalized? P5. It has too much syntactic sugar P6. It's too much like Ruby. [I don't think this is worth fully debating, but it has been expressed.] Scriptaculous S1. What is the future of Scriptaculous if Prototype flounders? S2. My developers need to be able to read Scriptaculous code; it would be easier if they didn't have to learn Prototype syntax too. I'm not suggesting the above be debated (again), but let's not shoo away those who raise valid concerns. Note too, that most of the concerns voiced are with Prototype, not Scriptaculous. I'm here because I'm impressed with Scriptaculous and want it to succeed. Thomas Fuchs has done a good thing for the _javascript_ community. I want it to last. Ya'll have proven time and again that there are smarter heads than me on this list. I want to offer some suggestions for consideration: ----------- == Spread the work better. Thomas, find a small handful of active contributors willing to filter bugs and test patches on multiple platforms, and recommend patches for inclusion. Also task them to present lists of bugs to close (duplicate/irrelevant/not a bug/won't fix) or vote/highlight/prioritize those reporting serious issues. Have a group of trusted programmers you can assign things to. Task another handful of people to update/fix the documentation. Design a process flow whereby patches/updates can be immediately reflected in documentation. In short, delegate; remain at the helm, but let others do the legwork. Perhaps all of this is already happening in a less public way, and I'm running my mouth off. == Merge with or fork Prototype. This is a touchy subject, and I don't mean to approach it lightly. It would, however, recognize the concerns mentioned above regarding Prototype has having validity. This is but one possible way to address them. Take a moment, publicly or not, to examine the pros and cons of a merge or a fork, as compared with running separate projects. Talk it over with Sam. ----------- That's more long winded than I meant to be, and I don't mean to rehash old issues. If you made it this far, thanks for putting up with me. TAG On Jul 20, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Alex Duffield wrote: Well said. I am sick of the prototype bashing. This is a list for those who WANT to use prototype. Would those who dont want to use it please leave. |
_______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list Rails-spinoffs@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs
