On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:13:43 -0400, Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

--On 25. April 2007 21:51:24 +0200 Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

In your (stripped away) example, I saw lots of magic (e.g. "grok.context",
"grok.name", "@grok.action").

But readable and comprehensible magic...but I would not call that magic.

For me (several years back), Zope's TTW capabilities have been
a major reason why I got interested in Zope.

Interesting ...

i too got seduced by the zmi, before i realized it had the grip of an iron maiden.

Had I then seen the nasty ZCML files so much liked in Zope 3, I
would probably have turned away very rapidly.

ZCML is a pain in the ***...that's why Grok is attractive for
writing Z3 apps and attracting more people to Z3.

amen.. part of the appeal of grok, for me at least, is that its basically a meta-framework for constructing your own domain specific languages.

Is this so much harder than ZClasses? I believe no

As someone who used ZClasses intensively, I believe "yes".

As so often, I disagree and must second Philipp.

i'd agree with andreas but for one thing, restarting the app server for minor code changes is painful.. akin to going from python back to compiled languages. for all their deployment/development best practice faults, zclasses offered quick iteration.


Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to