Nice try. Your post is well thought out, and surely it took a great deal of time and effort. Kudos.
However, it's not my intent to debate anyone. I get that I'm not "entitled" to any documentation. I know I could read the source. But, I would rather not go through the hassle when I don't have to. Mootools looks every bit as good as scriptaculous, and it has working documentation. This has been going on for months, and noone here sees it as a problem? Wow. Just wow. Anyway, good luck to all. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, just trying to vent my frustrations. :) On Apr 5, 9:18 am, Gregory Seidman <gsslist [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:40:12PM -0700, ErichTheWebGuy wrote: > > [...] > > > I would, but I hope you would understand that my clients will likely > > be less than understanding if I have to say to them, "Sorry, I can't > > finish your project on time, because the documentation I need has been > > offline for days, and I am waiting for someone on Google Groups to > > answer my question." > > > Thank you for your responses, but unfortunately, it seems like > > Scriptaculous has not reached the level of maturity that I am looking > > for. > > You have some logical fallacies and misapprehensions going on there. First > I'll list them out, then I'll address them. > > 1) unavailable documentation implies an inability to work with the library > 2) the wiki being down implies that the wiki documentation is unavailable > 3) the wiki documentation is the only documentation for Scriptaculous > 4) downtime of one machine implies anything at all about the maturity of the > library > > Now, on to rebuttal. > > First, I was distressed that the wiki was down and I was unable to get to > the documentation I was used to using. I had work to do, though, so I read > the source. Yup, what with it being an open source project and all, the > source is right out there for you to read. Furthermore, since it is not > only based on Prototype code but also style, and the Prototype > documentation is up and running, it was no problem to figure out what I > needed to do. So, yeah, while it may be easier to quick look something up > on the wiki, it's not that much harder to read the source and figure it > out. So much for #1. > > As for #2, remember that anything on the web is never really gone. Google > has it cached, for one, and the Wayback Machine has the whole site (though, > granted, from no more recently than July of > 2007):http://web.archive.org/web/20070709235615rn_2/wiki.script.aculo.us/sc... > > Other have already mentioned the various other documentation resources for > Scriptaculous, so I think it's pretty clear that #3 is right out. I will > also point out, as I have elsewhere concerning other open source projects, > that you are no more entitled to free documentation than you are entitled > to the functionality provided by the free code. It's a gift from a group of > authors. If they only give you the gift of functionality, you may decline > that gift but you are in no position to demand that they also provide free > documentation. If you are too cheap to buy the previously mentioned book > <http://www.pragprog.com/titles/cppsu> then you rely on whatever you can > Google or read in the source. Always keep in mind that it's all a gift. > > Finally, concerning #4, the wiki is not implemented in JavaScript and its > downtime is completely unrelated to the maturity of the Scriptaculous > library. Why would you even imagine that there is a connection to be made > there? There's some guy who didn't invest in five nines of availability > for a machine running a wiki. Not only is he not (solely) responsible for > the library itself, his sysadmin interest and skills are unrelated to his > JS programming interest and skills. I'm completely baffled by this one. > > Anyway, feel free to use whatever you want to use. Don't imagine that your > departure, especially on such logically weak grounds, is of great concern > to the Prototype/Scriptaculous community at large. > > --Greg --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
