> > Back when I was doing Rails, the state of Rails' documentation was not > > materially different from the current state of Lift's documentation with the > > exception of DHH's awesome book (which is my all time favorite tech book). > > Most of the online documentation was weak or non-existent. > > This is true, but *getting started* was extremely easy. A few very non- > intimidating commands and you were up & running and making quick edits > that appeared in real time. Once you started to dig a little deeper > you ran into the problems you describe but by that point the fish was > already on the hook.
See: http://code.google.com/p/simple-build-tool/wiki/Processors This is what I am working on with Mark Harrah. We will ultimately have a simple "lift" command in the SBT shell... As i said before (and it appears to have been ignored) we are working on this, and its going to give us a very robust platform and vastly improve user experience. > > While I'm not sure I 100% agree with Tim's "6 million dollar man" argument > > about PDF, PDF is common and useful... Scribd (which is definitely in the > > hip-cool-kids side of street) is built on PDF. > > PDF is great if you're making an ebook. It loses on every other score. > I have to download it each time it's updated. I can't link into it > from other sites. HAHA... well i wont start an argument on that, i'll just say that we as an organisation have tens of millions of dollars invested in PDF... its not going anywhere from the IT eco-system and I generally disagree with your points but I wont get into the finer points of electronic document creation. > > Okay... sorry... but this is a gratuitous swipe. Ugly == Not Easy to Use. > > Nope. Sorry. I don't buy this. > > It's because of this - it suggests that the people behind the docs > don't have either the time or the inclination to attend to the little > details, which implies that other details might also be overlooked. If > making attractive & easy to read introductory materials isn't a > priority for the developers, maybe they also don't care about making > the rest of the experience pleasant. Im not sure I agree (experience tells me developers are more pragmatic), but I take your point. > I haven't found this to be the case at all. I build a new ruby into a > separate install prefix and gem install rails and I'm ready to go. I > certainly don't have to deal with anything approaching the complexity > and inscrutability of a 152 line pom.xml. See above about SBT. Moreover, what was your feeling the first time you saw a complex rake file? Im not defending maven, rather, just think of the similar reaction. > > I do 50% of my coding with Emacs and my fingers do the right thing. Those > > using TextMate or an IDE don't worry at all. > > I already hate having to navigate 3 directory levels in rails, even > with ido mode. Three *more* tabs to each file doesn't sound like fun. As was already discussed, its only 3 more levels if you use the java package naming. Call it whatever you want. Cheers, Tim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
