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

Tom Trenka ttrenka at gmail.com
Thu Oct 11 14:39:00 EDT 2012


Not for nothing, but you're so wrong I have a hard time even considering
where to start.  But...I'll give it a shot.

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Sasha Firsov <suns at firsov.net> wrote:

>  TT,
> I missed the part of 2.0 === Nano/Core in this long thread.
> Still we are talking about patterns which this foundation support and
> based on.
>
> The development patterns used for "simple" developer and "enterprise" not
> just different but mutually exclusive. That is what I tried to say.
>

Indeed, you are entirely wrong about this.  There is nothing mutually
exclusive about it.  While I don't like your dichotomy between "simple" and
"enterprise" developers (since in my experience most enterprise developers
are actually one step above what you term as simple), I'll put it this way:
*both* sets of developers are looking for one thing.  A simple way to
accomplish what they need to do in the quickest, simplest, easiest ways
possible.


> The calls chaining, modularization, etc where given as samples of dev-t
> patterns conflict.
>

No one ever said anything about turning Dojo 2.0 into a full-on chaining
library, and no one EVER said that we'd be dropping (in particular) our AMD
approach in favor of killing off modularization.  You're just plain wrong
on this, and I simply have no idea where you even got the idea we'd
consider doing something like that.

There are times when chaining is a good thing (like dojox/charting), and
there are times when it is not (as in, making EVERYTHING chainable).
 Still...I really don't understand where you're coming from on most of your
expressed opinions, but given my experience I am going to suspect that
almost all of your work has been in the enterprise environment.

If I can make that assumption, then I think you are probably concerned that
we would do something stupid like weaken our principal marketing strength;
I can assure you that we will never do anything of the kind.


> Unless you are able to resolve the difference in requirements for "simple"
> and "enterprise" there is no point to talk to support both.
> We need to list those requirements and see what is doable what is not. IMO
> there is no room for "simple" one.
>

Again you are missing the forest for the trees.  Dojo Core AS IT STANDS NOW
is an excellent substitute for something like jQuery.  That will not change
(and indeed it can't, for the simple reason that it's not possible to build
something well like Dijit on top of it).  What I am saying is Dojo 2.0
needs to be more-so.

I'd also guess that you've never had the pleasure of writing a strong,
open-source base library.  If that's the case, trust me when I say to you
that decisions at this level are INCREDIBLY important and none should ever
be taken lightly.  There is a ton of code written on top of Core and to not
consider that when approaching a refresh would be ridiculously
short-sighted.

-- Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20121011/2563d22a/attachment.htm 


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list