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

Tom Trenka ttrenka at gmail.com
Thu Oct 11 13:48:37 EDT 2012

I'm *really* not sure what you're trying to say, so let me make it clear
where I'm coming from.

Your application is a house.  You build that house on top of a strong
foundation.  In terms of using the Dojo Toolkit, that foundation would be
the Nano/Core.

If you're going enterprise, you're probably using Dijit and/or something
like dojox/mvc to build the walls, the roof, and to a lesser extent the
decor inside and out.  BUT all of that is still built on the foundation
that is Nano/Core.

What I am saying (and this is an old argument, btw) is that YOU DON'T NEED
TO USE DIJIT and/or something like dojo/mvc to build your walls.  All the
tools to do that are right there in Nano/Core.  If I didn't need to build a
house but maybe a lean-to, Core is more than enough to handle that.

And if you think for a minute that the guy who came up with one of the
original loaders AND the concept of JS objects as namespaces would do
something as stupid as try to pull a single jQuery-like $, you're daft.

-- Tom

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Sasha Firsov <suns at firsov.net> wrote:

> -1
> On 2012/10/11 9:44 AM, Tom Trenka wrote:
> > 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?
> Not at all. You trying to blend together completely opposite concepts.
> Simplifying development and support zillions of enterprise-level app
> requirements.
> Please prove me wrong.
> Those concepts are opposite to each other. That is why jQuery wins on
> "simple" development and DTK on enterprise one.
> The fine-grained modular development(AMD), theme switching,
> localization, etc has a cost of understanding and development
> complexity. Making each level efficient from implementation and
> comfortable from developer point should be our goal. Not simplification
> or trying to adjust to "simple user" needs.
> Lets recall what are the requirements of "simple" developer and see that
> many are not applicable to "serious" one.
> - shortest code footprint. Tons of tricks to achieve but result is
> mixing together all kinds of stuff making the code not manageable.
> - Unified namespace by mashing all modules under same namespace( $.xxx
> ). DTK went away far time ago. And even namespaces are deprecated in
> favor of AMD.
> - preserving same functional scope/context. As result it allows chaining
> $(...).(...)...  It assumes to carry functional scope through. Not sure
> why exactly it is bad, but something in my guts fill against it.
> - absence of complex modules, templates in end developer's life. I.e.
> developer could simply avoid modularization by having single JS
> sufficient to run whole app.
> - you add some own
> IMO those are not DTK goals. If we clearly distantiate DTK from "simple"
> development it will hurt a bit of marketing. But eventually win due to
> the "serious development" branding.
> Just my 2c.
> Sasha
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20121011/09ba0151/attachment-0001.htm 

More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list