Indeed! Hoo hah! Has anyone asked why Tapestry, which is just JSF done well in my opinion, is causing no difficulties on the Struts list?
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. > > 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] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
