On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:29 PM, jonathan mawson umpti...@gmail.com wrote:
You mistake different with harder. People who are used to one way to do
things will find different harder than the same.
No, I don't. Different *is* harder. When there is a convention it should be
followed unless there is a good reason not to do so. This is one of the
half
dozen or so key principles of usability. When you choose to do something in
a way that requires extra effort - *especially* when there is a convention
you could have followed - then tell people, briefly, that you have a good
reason for doing so. One that will benefit them.
In the case of view-first, there are plenty of posts as to why it's
better.
Said posts won't help when trying to get more people to use Lift. It's up
to
you to set your priorities, but if one of those is creating a framework
that
people use in significant numbers then you can't adopt a People could read
posts attitude to your new user experience. Especially when RoR and Grails
have set the bar so high.
The couple of ports I've
done, I've seen some substantive code reductions and significant test
code
reductions. And, what I've gotten in addition to a smaller code base is
higher performance, more security, and more maintainability. So, Lift is
in
fact not harder to use.
Sorry, no. A better result does NOT equal easier to use. It might equal
Easier to use for a superior programmer who has tougher requirements.
Otherwise Emacs and Latex would be easier to use than Word - and much
easier than Notepad. What you are saying is that Scala is more powerful.
Which is great, because in any software product category there are usually
three viable niches - easiest to use, cheapest, and most powerful. In your
shoes I'd think about going after that most powerful niche.
I know that you're anti marketing, but not all marketing is BS. A lot of it
- at least in technical products - is honest communication regarding the
niches that your product is designed for. If you don't tell potential Lift
users what Lift can do for them, why should they try it? There really isn't
a rational reason.
If there's no rational reason to use Lift, then perhaps you could find
another community to spend your time in.
And why create a framework which no one will use?
Yeah, there are 1,700 nobodies on the Lift list. The folks at FourSquare
and Novell and Innovation Games and Xerox and SAP and Siemenns and etc. are
nobody.
Lift is not a clone of any framework. It's different and there are reasons
for those differences. If you don't like them, please use what you like
best. Use what feels most comfortable for you. Use what works best for
you.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/superficial-first-impressions-from-a-rails-junkie-tp27802055p27808051.html
Sent from the liftweb mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Lift group.
To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comliftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Surf the harmonics
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Lift group.
To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
