Great, great post, Mislav. I'd like to mention (once again) that nearly all criticism of Prototype falls into two categories:
(1) Stuff it does that you don't like (augmented prototypes, shallow namespacing, syntactic sugar). These are philosophy differences, and they are not subject to veto. Prototype tries to operate under the same general philosophy as Ruby, so if you don't like that philosophy then there are other wonderful frameworks you can use instead. (2) Stuff that shows a lack of polish, or stuff that doesn't reflect well on a community. (Lack of documentation, unprocessed patches, glaring bugs, little communication). I will acknowledge that Prototype has room to improve in this area. But that's why we're doing something about it. We've formed a Prototype Core development team *and* a documentation team. Thomas has done a great job of responding to patches and submitting bugfixes. And even though Sam is not very vocal: I am. Justin Palmer is. Thomas Fuchs is. Dan Webb is. We blog about Prototype all the time, and we're able to give input into its long-term direction. If there's some aspect of the the Prototype community (this mailing list, the IRC channel, and the blogs of Core members) that you find lacking, let one of us know. Don't feel like you're not being heard just because you don't have Sam's ear. Cheers, Andrew Dupont --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
