Hi Andrew, On 11/29/06, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The biggest difference between Prototype zealots and zealots of other > libraries, I've found, is that the former embraces the term "philosophy > differences" whereas the latter prefers "poor design decisions."
I have always thought that Prototype enthusiasts have to call them philosophy differences because they wouldn't very well call their chosen library poorly designed. > This contrast in terminology mirrors the disparate reasons one would start a > new JavaScript library: > > (1) To espouse one's own coding philosophy. This is not me. I am developing a good library I can use for work. I also want to share it because quality JavaScript is hard to come by and I want Rails to benefit. > (2) To "aspire to [a] high level of quality," suggesting that the > authors of other libraries are lazy or aren't interested in doing good > work. I wouldn't suggest they are lazy or uninterested although it might be true of some. I don't know. I think they are probably busy and don't get around to it. I also think that some people maybe like making fancy, exciting UI's but their personalities are not suited to the kind of tedious and frustrating research that is necessary for building cross-browser code library. It requires about 20 or more browser versions on various operating systems. > I make no value judgments about your code -- the parts I saw look quite > nice -- but we've all been doing this a while, and we're all quite > opinionated, so I recommend a change in tone. Your initial e-mail > overshadows the seeming quality of your framework and makes you sound > like a self-infatuated person suffering from the late stages of > Not-Invented-Here syndrome. I guarantee nobody adopts a library solely > on the library author's assurance that his code is Really Awesome. One time here I tried to explain the places where I saw Prototype has problems but the suggestions fell mostly on deaf ears. I did receive an email of appreciation that someone was finally saying something on this spinoffs list. Another person, who was very angry with me during that discussion, emailed me an apology yesterday (months later) and stated that he has stopped using Prototype. I now know of even more weak spots in Prototype then I did at that time. So far I have decided not to create a web page that lists all the spots I'm talking about because I don't want to evoke more flaming and I really don't have time. I won't be using Prototype. It seems the Prototype community is very defensive about the code base because they like how it feels to program with Prototype. They maintain their alegence even in light of what I think is well reasoned criticisim about where the library will fail. I don't expect anyone to adopt Fork based on my claim of aspiring to high quality code. I hope my claim encourages them to take a look and see for themselves that the code is good. And if they can tell me why it is not good then I would really like to know. And if I agree then I will make changes. Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" 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/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
