[dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.
rg at sevenite.com
Thu Oct 11 12:54:22 EDT 2012
Semi side point: I'm not sure I agree that having a module that targets itself as being usable by people who don't want to think about JS is necessarily "stooping." It's just another style of making stuff available on the web (I'm assuming, of course, that the advanced stuff is the same regardless of the availability of n00b modules). It's perfectly acceptable for people to want to produce content but not have to learn the details unless they're interested. Not *everyone* has to be a professional web developer.
Just like how modern cars don't burden the user with learning how the engine, transmission, suspension, etc. all work, just to drive to the grocery store--if that type of driving is all that interests you, you'll never be a Formula One driver, but that doesn't mean you don't benefit from Formula One technology when it trickles down into consumer vehicles.
All I'm saying is that it's totally legit to trickle a few things down.
Revin Guillen :: Sevenite Inc
rg at sevenite.com
On Oct 11, 2012, at Oct 11 | 9:44 AM, Tom Trenka wrote:
> Ahhh. NOW I see where you guys are coming from. Let me see if I can make the picture a little clearer so we can focus on making Core great to begin with...
> I don't think any of us are suggesting that we stoop to that kind of "brainless" level. But since the beginning, Dojo has always kind of focused, in terms of "how does one not simply walk into Mordor", on the idea that it should *only* be used to create complex, single-page web applications. That may not have been the community's intent but that's how it comes across.
> So what I end up seeing and hearing from non-Dojo people is that to use Dojo, you're kind of expected to write some kind of single page app. And I think that's wrong--and I think that's why the sore subject of jQuery comparisons come up.
> When you look at it from that standpoint, the idea of creating a simpler (which to me means streamlined) Dojo 2.0 is not just to cater to the lowest common denominator; it also means making it clear that Dojo is not just for big apps. What we have in Core covers all of the needs of the brochure-ware type of sites; I don't think we need anything really new (as in new features). But I do think that we might do a better job marketing to that type of developer, primarily by giving said developers entryways to getting the small things they need to get done, quickly and easily.
> When we release a major point version, I think we have the perfect opportunity to refine our messages to that effect and start making it clear that the Dojo Toolkit is *not* just for enterprise-level apps. Make sense?
> -- Tom
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Kenneth G. Franqueiro <kgf at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
> I can understand the point presented by Revin / Ken B / Rawld / etc. to
> the extent of not focusing exclusively on "enterprise-level" concerns to
> the exclusion/detriment of the "little guys" too; I just don't want to
> see us do the opposite, or waste excessive cycles trying too hard to
> accommodate the little guys. I think we can certainly help some of
> them, and as Tom has said, it's not really that dojo *can't* do those
> things. It's just not as approachable as something that markets itself
> as "hey you can use this so you don't have to think about JS", but I
> don't think it's wise for us to stoop to that level.
> --Ken F
> On 10/11/2012 12:28 PM, Revin Guillen wrote:
> > *nod*, I can totally respect that viewpoint, and thanks for continuing to bear with the team as we discuss this.
> > Perhaps the idea of also supplying a tool that fits in the brochure site level of abstraction is too hot-button-y, and we should just leave it up to the ones who do care about that part, for development down the road. Nobody anywhere is suggesting that we focus on the simpler stuff to the exclusion of or detriment to the "real" toolset. Historically, we've had a very hard time discussing serving the simpler needs, though, because ... well, no offense to anyone, but it almost feels like scar tissue or something. I get the feeling like as a group we have this sort of visceral reaction to the suggestion of Simpler, and it quickly derails conversational focus.
> > If we would get more done by skipping that topic for now, let's just agree to skip it. *I'm* still interested in a brochure module, because I build a small handful of little side projects every year that could benefit from it; I love to use Dojo (yes, whether or not I'm really "using" it is arguable) on those. I usually do some sort of CDN single script include thing, total custom JS is less than 1000 lines, etc..., and I'm certainly used to the AMD ceremony, so it's not like it's a giant pain *for me*. But I have plenty of non-developer friends who are intrigued by what I do, and want to learn a little bit. I'd really like to be able to sell Dojo to them in some form.
> > Plenty of us aren't remotely interested in supporting that market at all. *shrug* That's perfectly fine. Let's not let it impede our progress. We've been going back and forth on this for a bit now; how about we just make headway on the elite-ES5-tools stuff, and if/when the time comes, those who care can build whatever abstractions they want?
> > --
> > Revin Guillen :: Sevenite Inc
> > rg at sevenite.com
> > On Oct 11, 2012, at Oct 11 | 8:41 AM, Colin Snover wrote:
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dojo-contributors mailing list
> >> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> >> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
> > _______________________________________________
> > dojo-contributors mailing list
> > dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> > http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
More information about the dojo-contributors