On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Derick Eisenhardt<derick.eisenha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So, TG2 finally has a stable release. However, it's release has sadly > come out to little fan fare as far as most of the web is concerned. > I'm worried by the current state of advertising/marketing and > documentation, that what there is available currently has very little > appeal to the majority of web developers out there. For TG2 to make > any real traction it's going to have to appear to be the best of breed > web development environments. As far as I can tell the only folks > currently interested are those of us who have previously been using > TG1, are hard core python fans, or are already sold on the idea of > distributed/modular development (WSGI). That unfortunately leaves > Turbogears with a somewhat niche audience. > > Django grew it's user base by advertising to people that it was "the > best, easiest to learn and use web development platform" and "better > than Ruby on Rails." Their community seems to still be growing at > rapid rates, while I've seen hardly any difference in new users around > here since TG2 went final. At the end of the day, the average web > developer doesn't care what platform they're using, or how it > works...they just want the quickest and easiest method to get what > their site running and doing what they want. Currently, TG2 still has > a good bit of a learning curve. And I'm sorry to burst anyone's > bubbles, but we DO NOT in any way shape or form have "the best > documented web development platform." And until it's retardedly easy > for someone who has never programmed in Python, barely ever used the > MVC model before, and knows nothing of command lines to jump in and > make their first TG site in less than an hour, it's going to remain a > niche audience. > To be honest. I don't like that. Every tool that has taken that approach ends ups being bad. Sure we need to make it as much friendly as possible but I don't want this to become the average idiot tool (no offense really) but I guess I do prefer to aspire to "the best of us" recently someone send me this quote.
"This users are idiots, confused by functionality" mentality is a disease.Think users are idiots? Only idiots will use it" Linus Torvalds So please please don't read me as "elitist" read me as "best of breed" both in components and users. > Beyond that our site is a bit of a joke currently. We're not even self > hosting as far as I can tell. Now I know there's http://beta.turbogears.org > out there, and I know folks are working on the Pages CMS. But we > really should have had all that up before 2.0 went final. It's truely > amazing how much a person will judge you're product simply on the the > looks of your website alone, especially when the product is a web > development platform. > I totally agree and I did my best to try to get that working, (jon1012, faide and me worked to get that done) but as Mark said we all have day and consulting jobs. TG2 the software was ready pre-pycon but the new site wasn't. The decision was made to ship the product because the damage from people judging for a bad site was less than from people thinking TG2 was vaporware. TG2.0 was delayed several month 2-3 for the "infraestructure" to ca Anyway at this point in time beta.turbogears.org is usable and people should be able to request for an account and work on it. > Furthermore, ToscaWidgets is dead in the water as far as I can tell > and it's widget selection is sparse at best. I have to disagree, releases are made and the infrastructure is there to make all the widgets you want. > It is absolutely > imperative that TG have a full-featured widget toolkit built-in by > default and it be just as well documented as any other aspect of the > platform. Actually it comes with 2 ToscaWidgets and webhelpers. > TG1 had fairly good integration with MochiKit, but TG2's > current stance appears to be you can either use this basic Tosca stuff > someone threw together and then let stagnate for a year, or go out and > find a "real" widget library (jQuery, Dojo, etc), but you'll have to > figure out how to use it by yourself. And that is the exact opposite > of the position we should be portraying to new users...if people want > that situation, why not just use plain ol' Pylons? > Note I do believe (please check the archives) that TW wrappers for JS libraries are a bad idea. I think you are confused about the role of TW. and a "widget library" if you want "ajax widgets" then YES! go learn the JS library you want. There is nothing you can and should do on the framework to "integrate" a JS library other than doing magical stuff. ToscaWidgets is a forms library, you shouldn't think it's more than that. I think the decision to be JS agnostic for TG2 was a good thing it means you are able to put anything you want! for the client site. Remember most mid-big project the guy working JS is probably a different one tha the one doing backend stuff. As long as you throw json out for those parts you will be fine :) Also IMO Mochikit was a bad idea for TG1, not because Mochikit has a debacle but because it was bad to get out of it. > I hope I have not offended anyone here today, I'm just trying to tell > it like it is. I implore you to not spend so much time on adding new > features to 2.1 and focus on getting these core problems taken care of > first and foremost. Please please please make 2.1 all about polish. > I'd really love to talk to fellow developers and when I say I use > Turbogears, they don't respond with a "huh? what's that?" Then the best will be to get hands on and do some work. ChrisP said something to me the other day and he was totally right. "For some reason people think TurboGears has tons of core developers, when it's really just a couple of guys". Regarding 2.1 it is not about feature 2.1 is more about cleanup, if you take a look the major stuff there so far is the new dispatch code which is a lot cleaner and the new json renderers, that both get rid of the last of buffet and the dependencies on rule dispatch. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to turbogears-trunk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
