fuzzylollipop wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: > > > > In various open source circles, the mere usage of 1.0 may indicate some > > kind of stability, but not necessarily maturity, or at least the desire > > of the developers to persuade users that the code is ready for them to > > use. > > nope in GENERAL usage, 1.x means that the developer is designating a > version that is feature complete and stable.
Please note the distinction between "stable" and "mature" - these are not quite the same thing. Django, Rails and Turbogears may be at or approaching 1.0, meaning that their developers regard them as being stable (ie. no showstopping bugs), but that's not the same as being mature. Moreover, the developers of all those frameworks will most likely not stop at 1.0 but start working towards 2.0, possibly creating quite a different product. > I never ever mentioned comparing version numbers between differing packages. No, but there are important psychological factors at work when choosing and interpreting version numbers: do you go for ABC 0.9, XYZ 1.2 or PQR 7.1? What about the newly announced XYZ 2.0 - is that a safer choice than its 1.x predecessor? > MY POINT was the developers of Rails JUST RECENTLY decided that it was > ready for general consumption compared to all the PREVIOUS Rails > releases. That judgement call may be true, but they haven't exactly been reticent about getting people to download and use it before now. > And NONE of these frameworks has been used to power anything along the > scale of what I work with on a daily basis. I can believe that. Do you have any success stories to share? > And speaking from experience, autogenerated "Active Object Pattern" > frameworks dont' scale. And Rails is no exception. It didn't work 10 > years ago when all the ORM vendors were selling ridiculously price > "point and click" database application builders, what makes people > think it will now? My feeling was that any object-relational mapper that (supposedly in this case) dictates how you're supposed to design your database automatically rules itself out over a vast territory of existing and new applications. Having seen the EJB army march themselves into a swamp, my feeling is that most such mappers seem to be an increasingly complicated excuse not to learn SQL. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
