Re: Feature sets [was Re: Templating System]

[Frank D. Cringle]

Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank D. Cringle) wrote:
> ><unconstructive grumble>
> >This sounds dreadfully microsoftian.  Trashcan: check; Bouncing
> >paperclip: check.
> 
> Well yeah, if you choose features that nobody cares about, then nobody will
> care whether the package supports them.

But they should care.  They should choose the package that does not
support irrelevant features, since (given similar quality of
implementation) it will be smaller, more efficient and more reliable.

> Personally I think it would be really nice to have a comparison between
> modules, and I think its chief purpose would NOT be to indicate which
> systems are *better* than others, but what the intent of various modules
> are.  It would enable someone at a glance to know whether something
> fills the I-am-your-entire-WWW-world niche, or is just a simple templater.

That's fine.  What I am objecting to is the (mis-)use of the term
"Templating system".  A template is a passive sheet of metal or
plastic with holes in it.  It does not include levers and gears and
motors.

-- 
Frank Cringle,      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (+49 2304) 467101; fax: 943357