I really do see these fallacies coming up at all. The fallacies which typically come up are ones like: (1) argument ad hominem; (2) appeal to authority; (3) appeal to common practice; (4) appeal to emotion; (5) appeal to flattery; (6) appleal to popularity; (7) appeal to riducle; (8) biased sample. These seem to have a life of their own. Yours are, so far as I can see, never around. Could you give an example from someone's submission on this list?
Tapestry is as diverse as JSF and is in Apache as well as Struts, yet no one in Struts has ever complained about Tapestry. (Tapestry, by the way, does, in my opinion, what JSF wants to do better than JSF does it. If JSF should have tried to "horn in" for branding purposes, Tapestry wo0uld have been a better choice than Struts.) However, if Craig had tried that, Howard Lewis-Ship would have made him go through what everyone else goes through, leading to JSF, inevitably, being show the door. This discussion is not about diversity. That is Ted's pronouncement which is unrelated to the facts. This discussion is about greed and branding and JSF's difficulties getting a toe hold in the mind and eye of the public, I don't know of a single soul that does not wish JSF well when it is not pushed on someone. Ted is right that committers on this list do what they want to do. And, he is right that the committer clique decided to jump into bed with Craig and JSF. There are committer feet sticking out all over under the covers of JSF and Shale. This is not to promote diversity. This was to serve themselves. That is irresponsible to their elected position. Ted's idea that serving an open source community is one way to do your job is a big part of the problem, not a part of the solution, around here. Frequently we find developers coding away to make something in Struts fit what they need on the job rather than what Struts needs. This has been especially prevalent the last year and a half. Ted finds this perfect. I think it is an abomination. The motivation for working in open source used to be more due to a desire to do top quality work, something many bright people were stopped from doing at work or otherwise frustrated about. Now my job, I don't know about yours, does more exciting work than anyone at Struts even has a dream about. Spring and other places are working on exciting, clean, real, stuff. This attempt to sell JSF has turned Struts into slogging away at best. Struts, in my opinion, by tying itself to the think and the values of a commercial product has completely lost track of any sense of what is and what is not open source and what is community. The entry to assisting on these things as a committer used to be merit based in the sense that you had some talent and could work with others. Now it is a club based on balancing the voting blocs. When Ted started, he could just jump in after showing that he was no fool, and start helping. Those real open source days at Struts are over at this point. Now any indication that you might actually make Struts grow or have something new and interesting to offer is a sure sign that you will be rejected. Things have gotten so bad with this that the committers had to admit that they essentially had killed Struts and needed to get some help from some people who really had been doing open source work. Those people will find, I predict, that they made a mistake coming here and that the Struts name was not worth it. On 3/19/06, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
