[dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.

Revin Guillen rg at sevenite.com
Thu Oct 11 11:20:35 EDT 2012


Yes, I think in general we all seem to mostly agree, except for when someone uses a word like "war", "jQuery", "low-level", etc... and ends up pushing someone's buttons. The point is not the loaded-word button pushing; the point is, we should look at the successes of other projects just as much as our own. Probably more, because they'll typically/naturally be areas where we're not strong. In many ways, trying to improve where we're weak *implies* taking advice from other projects' histories. Avoiding covering the same ground as another project just because we want to avoid being perceived as picking a fight or beating a dead horse limits the progress we can make.

Dividing people into groups of those who're Smart Enough To Use Dojo and those who Don't Want To Think is a false dichotomy. With a very powerful set of tools, we should certainly ALSO be well equipped to create a "less-thinking" single script unified API that lives on top of it and papers over the details. I'd certainly rather be in the position to attempt that than to be starting from a weaker solution and trying to grow *into* complexity and power.

Such a division also makes it too easy for us to let ourselves off the hook and write off a large chunk of users as irrelevant or unworthy, and that's dangerous. Whether it's our ideal world or not, lots of people clearly enjoy it when their tools do a certain amount of thinking for them, giving *them* control over the slope of the learning curve (or at least making them feel like they have that control).

I'm reminded again of Machiavelli: "He who neglects what *is* done for what ought to be done sooner effects his ruin than his preservation."

--
Revin Guillen :: Sevenite Inc
rg at sevenite.com

On Oct 11, 2012, at Oct 11 | 7:39 AM, Rawld Gill wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dylan Schiemann
>> Ken said this perfectly... it's not that we don't need excellent marketing, it's
>> that the decision for what 2.0 needs to be should be based on the needs of
>> the product, not on the marketing "war".
>> 
> 
> I'm not arguing for a "marketing war". I'm arguing that we should understand our market and try to win the maximum number of customers in that market. (We should probably stop using the word "war" since it seems so loaded to some.)
> 
> I'm sorry to be a pia, but can you/anybody please give a couple of examples of things we should *not* concern ourselves with. Or, equivalently, areas where we should *not* compete.
> 
> That we need marketing says nothing. What is/is not the target market? What is/is not important to that market? The answers to those questions will tell us what needs to be done.
> 
> --Rawld
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors



More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list