[dojo-contributors] Dojo marketing

Wolfram Kriesing wolfram.kriesing at gmail.com
Mon Oct 6 08:29:47 EDT 2008


Imho the problem with dojo is that the name already has
the attributes "big, slow, steap learning curve" (but also
"professional"!) attached to it. I have heard that in many
places not only at the Ajax Experience this year!
No offense, but that is my observation (and not only mine!).
And marketing will have a hard job changing that I guess,
especially with where jQuery currently is.
That was also the trigger for ddotjs.org (d.js).

Reasons for d.js, that in my opinion are hard or at
least much harder to achieve with dojo as it
is known now:
1) one file library, that can do cool shit
2) download and go
3) simple examples make you understand
  (almost all of it, at least people should
  have this feeling!!)
  docs are great but, not-needing-docs is even
  cooler! Anyway, I planned to extract the necessary
  parts form the docs and provide them as d.js-docs.
4) attract the hobby devs (like PHP did very well!,
  currently jQuery does a great job in that)
5) Give it the small, neat, jQuery-kinda touch, by
  providing a one-character namespace "d" for it
  (instead of "$" :-) ).


Another thought ...
In the end, if d.js should take off (because of the
reasons above) I would even suggest aim for another
shot and "officially merging" it with dojo again when
it hits the sweet spot, so dojo wins from all the hype,
because that is the final goal, right!?

Meanwhile, d.js can also be seen as a testing/play
ground for new ideas for dojo, but that's another
topic!

-- 
cu

Wolfram

http://uxebu.com - web consultancy
You need AJAX, RIA, JavaScript and all this modern stuff? We got it!



On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:19 AM, James Burke <jburke at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nikolai Onken <nikolai at nikolaionken.com> wrote:
>> Wolfram has made a build last week in Boston which was aiming to cover
>> exactly the issues you are mentioning.
>> http://ddotjs.org/
>> As far as I understood, this site is not complete yet but very close from
>> being.
>> Maybe we should take Wolframs efforts and include them in the release?
>> Nikolai
>
> I am reticent to include this as-is in the release -- it confuses the
> purpose and message of Base in Dojo. Maybe we want to reconsider what
> is in Base, but that is likely to be a longer discussion.
>
> In the near term, what ddotjs.org could turn into is a web tool that
> allows you to select the modules in Core you want and does the
> scopemapping of "dojo" to "d" (or the user's choice). Or maybe it can
> just evangelize the current Dojo Base.
>
> In the longer term (Dojo 2.0 timeframe), if we were to reconsider
> Base, then the functionality set should be what is in jQuery, and we
> should change the APIs as such to reflect the jQuery APIs were
> possible. It will likely not be a 100% match, and we will likely have
> more in our stuff (like if we need dojo.Deferred if we keep our
> current dojo.xhr code, and we likely would keep our loader).
>
> Why jQuery? They have the greater mindshare. We need to make it easier
> for people to transfer their knowledge to Dojo, in particular in the
> use of Dojo Base. If we can piggyback on their documentation too, that
> would be helpful. jQuery vs Dojo Base APIs are not that different
> today, mostly some renaming of things, mostly in the NodeList area.
> Maybe not do the .end() thing for pushing/popping node list contexts.
>
> Anyway, if we make it easier to step into Dojo, it will be easier for
> folks to start to appreciate Dojo's value-adds: the loader/module
> system, dijit, and deep/broad support of cutting edge features in
> dojox.
>
> James
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> http://turtle.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>



More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list