[dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.
rgill at altoviso.com
Thu Oct 11 13:53:42 EDT 2012
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dojo-contributors-bounces at mail.dojotoolkit.org [mailto:dojo-
> contributors-bounces at mail.dojotoolkit.org] On Behalf Of Revin Guillen
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:21 AM
> To: dojo dev.
> Subject: Re: [dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.
> 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
> 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
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
More information about the dojo-contributors