On 3/19/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indeed! Hoo hah! Has anyone asked why Tapestry, which is just JSF done > well in my opinion, is causing no difficulties on the Struts list?
Diveristy is important, even those who don't agree with a darwinian model seem to agree with this. Trying to push one size fits all would seem to reflect an intollerance of ambiguity and perhaps demonstrates more about an indiviual's personality traits than a genuine balanced opinion. Who really cares that much if this or that framework is superiour or not according to this or that principle, blue print and/or design pattern. All will be ultimately evaluated in the cold light of market forces (including available skills, development time/cost, and maintainance). Here are some of the fallacies that keep comming up Affirmation of the consequent if i create software according to x design pattern is will cost less and be higher quality, the app was built according to x design pattern, therefore the app cost less and is of higher quality. Denial of the antecedent if i create software according to x design pattern is will cost less and be higher quality, my software didn't cost less and isn't high quality, therefore it doesn't follow x design pattern. I actually agree that certain patterns help facilitate positive outcomes, but attempting to propose that sucess and failure are merely a function of choice of framework or the framework's strict adherence to x design pattern is just plain silly. Albeit I've a foot (or perhaps both feet) strongly in the silly camp because I'm engaging in this sort of futile dialogue. Mark > > On 3/18/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> Ted's central principle that "darwin decides" > > > > This is a false principle in the terms of software development. > > You don't have blind forces assembling the source code of Struts, > > but real living people who can see what people want and choose > > to write a solution for it. People decide in ASF, not Darwin. > > If the Commiters want Struts to succeed into the future, they need > > to always have passion and dedication to keep up with the demands > > of the MVC market. Any philosophy which reduces Struts to "a gaggle of > > engineers", I think, is a reductionist viewpoint; the problem is > > much bigger than engineers just wanting to solve problems. That's > > why other ASF projects like Tomcat and Tapestry are big winners and > > continue to be big winners: a passion to to be successful with > > whatever they craft, and a desire to see their projects be the best > > at what they are in the industry. I totally see this passion in Craig's > > work - let's transfer some of that energy into Struts Action Framework... > > and it's finally happening (again) with WW2. > > > > Paul > > > > --- Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I've stayed out of this silly thread up until now, but i guess its > > > time to be silly as well.. > > > > > > Now I imagine that I'll get burned by micheal o'grady (dakota jack) > > > for quoting this, but Ted's central principle that "darwin decides" is > > > a sound one. Its sound because it's also a principle that doesn't > > > state that struts or anything is good because its better or because he > > > influenced a group of people to act in a certain way, but because a > > > technology survives the ecological pressures of the economy and > > > projects that adopt such a approach remain profitable. > > > > > > Now natural selection doesn't produce perfection, even in biology, but > > > what you can be sure if is that any organism that lives today has been > > > begat by organisms that have survived "well enough". If best technical > > > solutions always won then betamax would have won the video wars. > > > > > > While struts is adopted and projects survive the ecological pressures > > > of engineering and economics it will probably survive. If a different > > > technoloy is adopted by other folk and they can knock out projects for > > > less then they will "probably" outlive struts or at least have a > > > better chance. > > > > > > But all these abstract principles of perfection serve very little. > > > From a darwinian perspective a ford motor car is more successful than > > > a ferrari. Now my understanding of the apache development that if > > > solutions (commits, patches etc) are best when they are real world > > > solutions, by facilitating these "adaptations" software is more likey > > > to survive ecological pressures because the adaptations are in direct > > > response to the enviornment in which these products find themselves. > > > > > > The other important factor to have a healthy ecosystem that there is > > > never a single organism/technology that covers all niches. Its also > > > true that in a single ecosystem there are never two organisms that > > > occupy the same niche for very long. This is nature, and I don't see > > > the human activity of software development being very different. > > > > > > I could carry on, but I wont.. What the main point is that it doesn't > > > really matter what anyone thinks of this and that. What will survive > > > will survive (excuse the tautology). Ferrari survives as does ford > > > (albeit from selling the financial products to buy their goods) they > > > occupy different niches. In the case of betamax and vhs only one > > > survived because they occupy the same niche. All any of us can do is > > > try and knock out projects as best and as cheaply as possible, and > > > darwin will decide the rest. Central to a good ecosystem is diversity. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > On 3/18/06, Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think the flaw in my analogy is that nobody will starve if they > > choose > > > > not to eat at the Struts shelter :-) > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > > > > > Steve Raeburn wrote: > > > > >> Let me try another analogy. Let's say you go down to volunteer at a > > > > >> homeless shelter. You serve a few meals and wipe a few tables a > > > > >> couple of times a month. Do you become bound by any responsibility > > > > >> other than to show up and help? Do you become responsible for > > solving > > > > >> the homeless problem? Should you feel obligated to give someone a > > > > >> bed? Some people may feel they do have such a responsibility. > > Others > > > > >> won't. It's not my place to criticize a volunteer for not taking on > > > > >> those additional responsibilities. I am just grateful that you've > > > > >> just done a little bit to help out. > > > > > > > > > > That's a good analogy, it took me a while to figure out why it > > wasn't > > > > > right for me with my position in mind (you had me doubting myself > > for > > > > > a few hours before it hit me!)... > > > > > > > > > > If the volunteer does as you say, then I would agree, there isn't > > any > > > > > added/assumed responsibility. One would hope they have their own > > > > > sense of responsibility and treat the homeless people kindly, but > > > > > that's about it. > > > > > > > > > > However... if the volunteer does good work and is consequently asked > > > > > to become a permanent volunteer by an existing group of permanent > > > > > volunteers, and as a result is given some degree of authority to > > make > > > > > decisions that will affect those that come to the shelter, then I > > > > > think there is definitely a higher level of responsibility to that > > > > > "community" of homeless, as well of course to the other permanent > > > > > volunteers. Again, as I've said all along, the degree of extra > > > > > responsibility I think is debatable. > > > > > > > > > > In your original analogy, the volunteer would be someone like > > me. In > > > > > my modified version, they would be a committer. At least in my > > eyes, > > > > > there is a difference. > > > > > > > > > > Excellent analogy though, you definitely made me think and evaluate > > my > > > > > position, I appreciate that! :) > > > > > > > > > >> Steve > > > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." > ~Dakota Jack~ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
