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

Colin Snover dojo-contributors at zetafleet.com
Thu Oct 11 11:41:36 EDT 2012


Hi,

So, I am just going to get down to brass tacks here and apologise in
advance if it offends anyone.

We should not attempt to compete in the brochure site space.

We should not attempt to compete in the “helper library for a
PHP/RoR/Java server-side-rendered site” space.

Those areas are both well-served by jQuery and other more specialised
libraries, and frankly, I doubt anybody here is even interested in
working in those areas, so why they are the topic of discussion is
beyond me. Because we are weak there? Of course we are. It isn’t our
focus, others do it better already, and making Web *app* maintenance
easy precludes the sorts of API shortcuts that these other libraries
take. I’m not saying we should not look to other places for inspiration,
but it’s absurd to say Dojo must be great at everything, just as absurd
as the notion that jQuery or MooTools or YUI need to be great at everything.

We should continue to be the best in the rich client-side application
space, since 1. that has been our focus for a long time, 2. it is where
we excel, 3. it is where the majority of contributors are invested in
their day-to-day work, and 4. it is a space that is still in need of our
experience and innovation.

What does this mean for Dojo more generally? It means it will *never* be
#1 in the JavaScript library space. So stop playing these stupid
popularity contests already, or go work on jQuery and win the popularity
contest but spend the rest of your life wedging square pegs into round
holes as a Web app dev because it’s not designed for that and never will
be, just as Dojo is not designed for brochure sites and never will be.

We will ingratiate ourselves with decision-makers and developers in the
Web app space by being the first well-known library to provide a fully
integrated OSS toolkit for delivering Web apps across platforms using
new Web technology. We have our own core technologies in place (modules
and feature detection), so stop wasting time talking in circles about
purpose and start figuring out how to build what *we* want to use. If
these discussions keep going on, I’m going to start suspecting people
don’t actually want to do the work because it’s a lot easier to complain
than it is to write code and offer solutions.

Regards,

On 2012-10-11 09:39, 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


-- 
Colin Snover
http://zetafleet.com



More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list