[dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.
rgill at altoviso.com
Thu Oct 11 18:23:29 EDT 2012
> From: Dylan Schiemann
> It's the wrong argument, which is why there's not much of a disconnect.
I don't understand, but don't worry about it unless you think it's important.
> Colin's point is that we should be focusing on the features that matter for
> building robust apps. As Bryan's example just showed, Dojo works well as a
> replacement for jQuery if you get what he just wrote, and it won't if you
> don't, so the challenge is marketing rather than technical, so why conflate
> and confuse the two.
My counterpoint to Bryan (which, from other conversations, I think he agrees with) is that if we add the feature of a prebuilt nano release artifact, then the two examples are essentially equivalent and JQ has zero advantage and several disadvantages going forward. That is a technical issue, not a marketing issue. It's also been noted our APIs need a "spring cleaning"; that's also a technical issue that has rather large implications. If we don't care about reaching customers that these two technical issues will help, then we shouldn't waste the time.
I never intended this thread to have anything to do with marketing. It is about why we exist, or, equivalently, it is about understanding who are our customers and what it is that they need. By far, the number one weakness of Dojo throughout its entire history is behaving as if "beginner" customers are not important. If we are going to make that mistake again, I'd like to see us do it with our eyes open.
It seems that you agree with Colin that JQ's customers are not our customers. Yet other times it seems you are not saying that. I am totally confused as to your position.
For the record, I think, as others have stated, we can do everything as good or better than JQ and similar such libs. And I think it is important to do so.
I think JQ (and similar such libs) customers are our customers too.
More information about the dojo-contributors