Yes, but thank god that the elected committers who are not elected officials have absolutely no responsibility and that the descent of Struts theory somehow will save the day?
On 3/18/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think struts has reached Slashdot status. There are so many > religious war lately. > > On 3/18/06, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/18/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Ted's central principle that "darwin decides" > > > > > > This is a false principle in the terms of software development. > > > You don't have blind forces assembling the source code of Struts, > > > but real living people who can see what people want and choose > > > to write a solution for it. People decide in ASF, not Darwin. > > > If the Commiters want Struts to succeed into the future, they need > > > to always have passion and dedication to keep up with the demands > > > of the MVC market. Any philosophy which reduces Struts to "a gaggle of > > > engineers", I think, is a reductionist viewpoint; the problem is > > > much bigger than engineers just wanting to solve problems. That's > > > why other ASF projects like Tomcat and Tapestry are big winners and > > > continue to be big winners: a passion to to be successful with > > > whatever they craft, and a desire to see their projects be the best > > > at what they are in the industry. I totally see this passion in > Craig's > > > work - let's transfer some of that energy into Struts Action > Framework... > > > and it's finally happening (again) with WW2. > > > > I can see some of the limitations of applying darwinian selection, but > > at the end of the day if one asks why some things last and others > > don't I don't think that success can only be a function of the talents > > and passion of a group of engineers. I'm not saying every one involved > > isn't talented and passionate. But if these "products" didn't have a > > use/application and at least some people were using them with success > > then they wouldn't survive. > > > > Tomcat is perhaps a little different in that its a reference > > implementation its survival and usefulness is potentially broader. > > > > I totally agree that there are some great ideas, shale gives you all > > the struts toys with any jsf implementation. Likewise traditional > > struts (action) is full of goodness, and we find ourselves on the user > > list for one motive or another. But if lots of products using these > > frameworks started costing too much to develop, maintain etc then > > they'd be less likely to survive. > > > > Thats not the same as saying that these products are created out of a > > blind passionless, talentless process. And I agree that the proximal > > causation for the success of such endevours can be attributed to > > these, but then betamax lost and vhs won. there are more wintel > > machines than macs. evolution isn't perfect its good enough. > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > --- Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I've stayed out of this silly thread up until now, but i guess its > > > > time to be silly as well.. > > > > > > > > Now I imagine that I'll get burned by micheal o'grady (dakota jack) > > > > for quoting this, but Ted's central principle that "darwin decides" > is > > > > a sound one. Its sound because it's also a principle that doesn't > > > > state that struts or anything is good because its better or because > he > > > > influenced a group of people to act in a certain way, but because a > > > > technology survives the ecological pressures of the economy and > > > > projects that adopt such a approach remain profitable. > > > > > > > > Now natural selection doesn't produce perfection, even in biology, > but > > > > what you can be sure if is that any organism that lives today has > been > > > > begat by organisms that have survived "well enough". If best > technical > > > > solutions always won then betamax would have won the video wars. > > > > > > > > While struts is adopted and projects survive the ecological > pressures > > > > of engineering and economics it will probably survive. If a > different > > > > technoloy is adopted by other folk and they can knock out projects > for > > > > less then they will "probably" outlive struts or at least have a > > > > better chance. > > > > > > > > But all these abstract principles of perfection serve very little. > > > > From a darwinian perspective a ford motor car is more successful > than > > > > a ferrari. Now my understanding of the apache development that if > > > > solutions (commits, patches etc) are best when they are real world > > > > solutions, by facilitating these "adaptations" software is more > likey > > > > to survive ecological pressures because the adaptations are in > direct > > > > response to the enviornment in which these products find themselves. > > > > > > > > The other important factor to have a healthy ecosystem that there is > > > > never a single organism/technology that covers all niches. Its also > > > > true that in a single ecosystem there are never two organisms that > > > > occupy the same niche for very long. This is nature, and I don't see > > > > the human activity of software development being very different. > > > > > > > > I could carry on, but I wont.. What the main point is that it > doesn't > > > > really matter what anyone thinks of this and that. What will survive > > > > will survive (excuse the tautology). Ferrari survives as does ford > > > > (albeit from selling the financial products to buy their goods) they > > > > occupy different niches. In the case of betamax and vhs only one > > > > survived because they occupy the same niche. All any of us can do is > > > > try and knock out projects as best and as cheaply as possible, and > > > > darwin will decide the rest. Central to a good ecosystem is > diversity. > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > On 3/18/06, Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I think the flaw in my analogy is that nobody will starve if they > choose > > > > > not to eat at the Struts shelter :-) > > > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > > > > > > Steve Raeburn wrote: > > > > > >> Let me try another analogy. Let's say you go down to volunteer > at a > > > > > >> homeless shelter. You serve a few meals and wipe a few tables a > > > > > >> couple of times a month. Do you become bound by any > responsibility > > > > > >> other than to show up and help? Do you become responsible for > solving > > > > > >> the homeless problem? Should you feel obligated to give someone > a > > > > > >> bed? Some people may feel they do have such a responsibility. > Others > > > > > >> won't. It's not my place to criticize a volunteer for not > taking on > > > > > >> those additional responsibilities. I am just grateful that > you've > > > > > >> just done a little bit to help out. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good analogy, it took me a while to figure out why it > wasn't > > > > > > right for me with my position in mind (you had me doubting > myself for > > > > > > a few hours before it hit me!)... > > > > > > > > > > > > If the volunteer does as you say, then I would agree, there > isn't any > > > > > > added/assumed responsibility. One would hope they have their > own > > > > > > sense of responsibility and treat the homeless people kindly, > but > > > > > > that's about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > However... if the volunteer does good work and is consequently > asked > > > > > > to become a permanent volunteer by an existing group of > permanent > > > > > > volunteers, and as a result is given some degree of authority to > make > > > > > > decisions that will affect those that come to the shelter, then > I > > > > > > think there is definitely a higher level of responsibility to > that > > > > > > "community" of homeless, as well of course to the other > permanent > > > > > > volunteers. Again, as I've said all along, the degree of extra > > > > > > responsibility I think is debatable. > > > > > > > > > > > > In your original analogy, the volunteer would be someone like > me. In > > > > > > my modified version, they would be a committer. At least in my > eyes, > > > > > > there is a difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent analogy though, you definitely made me think and > evaluate my > > > > > > position, I appreciate that! :) > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Alexandre Poitras > Québec, Canada > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
