Several people have responded (both in group and out) that MochiKit IS updated regularly. This is great and ... not really news to me; I've lurked in this list for a few months now. My point however, still remains, because a few Google groups posts saying "development is active" does not obviously show development. Frequent updates to the web site (there have been only two blog posts this year), new articles about how to use the library on web development sites, reviews in those JS library comparison articles that are oh-so-trendy these days, and of course updates to the non-SVN/stable version of the library are the kind of things that do demonstrate an active development community.
If I'm a new JS programmer and I start comparing libraries, I'm most likely not going to make it to this group. Instead I'm going to look at the website, and if the library doesn't look like it's actively developed I'm going to go looking somewhere else (for the reasons I listed in my previous post). >>I would much rather MK stay lightweight I agree; however, I still think there are future uses for Javascript coming that will justify their inclusion in the Mochikit library (IMHO, anything commonly done by a large number of JS programmers that could be well implemented in Mochikit's sleek Python-esque style). I guess what I'm trying to say is not that Mochikit constantly needs to add new functions and packages to be a great library; as everyone has said, it's already a great library. What I'm trying to say is, even if tons of new functions/packages aren't constantly being added, an active development community (or perhaps more accurately, the appearance of an active development community) is still very important if this great library is going to be recognized as such and widely used. Jeremy On Jul 18, 9:05 pm, Kevin Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any developer who has been in this business for any length of time > > should no better than to blindly use a library, no matter how cool, > > unless: > > A) they expect it to be actively developed in the forseeable future > > B) they don't ever expect to want a new version of the library > > Just my 2 cents -- I get the distinct impression that the core development > team uses MK in their commercial software, so they're motivated to patch the > code as browsers change and strong user expectations develop. I would much > rather MK stay lightweight and tight than bloat into some behemoth that > offers 100 ways to do the same thing because someone thought it would be > better to do it this "other way." Look at Windows(tm) for a shining example > of active development. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MochiKit" group. To post to this group, send email to mochikit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
