Good lord, Mark, get off the science. Are you completely lost? This is about Struts, although the elected committers who are not elected officials will soon claim that we are as far off the beaten track as you.
On 3/18/06, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > I can see some of the limitations of applying darwinian selection, but > at the end of the day if one asks why some things last and others > don't I don't think that success can only be a function of the talents > and passion of a group of engineers. I'm not saying every one involved > isn't talented and passionate. But if these "products" didn't have a > use/application and at least some people were using them with success > then they wouldn't survive. > > Tomcat is perhaps a little different in that its a reference > implementation its survival and usefulness is potentially broader. > > I totally agree that there are some great ideas, shale gives you all > the struts toys with any jsf implementation. Likewise traditional > struts (action) is full of goodness, and we find ourselves on the user > list for one motive or another. But if lots of products using these > frameworks started costing too much to develop, maintain etc then > they'd be less likely to survive. > > Thats not the same as saying that these products are created out of a > blind passionless, talentless process. And I agree that the proximal > causation for the success of such endevours can be attributed to > these, but then betamax lost and vhs won. there are more wintel > machines than macs. evolution isn't perfect its good enough. > > Mark > > > > > 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] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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~
