Re: benchmarking velocity

[Dave Glowacki <dg...@ssec.wisc.edu>]

Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 9/1/2000 3:40 PM, "Golden D. Blount" <go...@GoldenVisions.com> wrote:
> Active Developers are the definite voices here. It is a different way of
> working. Sure, we all take input from users, but unless you are contributing
> code and/or documentation, you views don't mean anything other than a
> consideration in the back of my mind. I'm sorry, but that is the way it is.

How many active developers are there on Velocity right now, aside
from Jason, Daniel and you?

Is Justin an active developer?  If so, he expressed a preference
for keeping #being/#end in as a backward compatibility measure.

> > I think that Velocity has an amazing potential that will not be realized
> > unless the core group realizes that their market is not other geeks like
> > themselves, but companies trying to bring together real people and develop
> > real products and have to use designers that are not purist computer
> > scientists.
> 
> Of course we realize the potential. I wouldn't be here as strongly if I
> didn't realize that.
> 
> > Do you really think that the people asking for #begin/#end have nothing
> > better to do than sit around and cloud up your perfect design?  Or is it
> > possible that it is an attempt to help you see outside your own experience
> > to give you some insight that will help make Velocity a success?
> 
> Sure, but so far I haven't seen any "insight" other than people think it is
> a good idea. I want some hard evidence as to WHY it is a good idea. I want
> some language studies to happen. I want to do more than just take input from
> the user base. 

Exactly.  We want you to *prove* that {} is better than #begin/#end,
not just assert that you know better than everyone else and thus
get to discard #begin/#end

> Please give me a concrete example of where I'm belittle a thought.

I quote:
    At some level, having Velocity at a high level position (ie: in the
    ASF) allows us to resist that type of feature crap (like adding
    #while and #begin and #end)

Re: benchmarking velocity

[Justin Wells <jr...@semiotek.com>]

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 07:54:04PM -0500, Dave Glowacki wrote:
> Is Justin an active developer?  If so, he expressed a preference
> for keeping #being/#end in as a backward compatibility measure.

I definately prefer #begin/#end be left in, but I am not going to 
vote -1 here. Although I have a big interest in what happens with Vel,
it's an experiment, and it's primarily Jason and Jon's experiment, at 
least for now. 

I'd -1 if it were proposed that #begin/#end be removed from WM.

Justin

Re: benchmarking velocity

[Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>]

on 9/1/2000 8:12 PM, "Todd Smith" <to...@terminalc.com> wrote:

> Ya know, I'm not an active developer on Velocity or anything like that
> so maybe I'm somewhat clueless but I just assumed that Jon meant "feature
> creep" and lost a vowel or two.  :-)
> 
> I'm of two minds here (not that I'm asking for a vote).  I like the
> cleanliness of "{}" and think that there is some sense in designing
> for programmers.  We often tend to be very anal about consistency and
> logic and (usually) dislike syntax-slop.  The non-coder, HTML/graphics
> types I work with want consistent rules and good documentation and
> examples.  I just don't see begin/end being any more or less helpful
> to them.  [Although I'll grant that the ones I'm thinking of are
> very much non-programmers---unskilled even in javascript.]
> 
> I think the important thing here is that you folks decide how you're
> going to handle specification issues like this and then use that
> framework to resolve the current question.  Maybe that means deferring
> this decision until you have a specs doc and have given those of us
> who are new to the project a chance to understand the ground-rules.
> The issue may very well resolve itself.
> 
> But I could be wrong.
> 
> Todd
> 

+1 with everything that Todd said. Extremely well thought out and well put.
This is exactly the type of discussion I like to have with people.

-jon

-- 
http://scarab.tigris.org/    | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/      | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/       | http://www.sourcexchange.com/

Re: benchmarking velocity

[Todd Smith <to...@terminalc.com>]

Ya know, I'm not an active developer on Velocity or anything like that
so maybe I'm somewhat clueless but I just assumed that Jon meant "feature
creep" and lost a vowel or two.  :-)

I'm of two minds here (not that I'm asking for a vote).  I like the 
cleanliness of "{}" and think that there is some sense in designing
for programmers.  We often tend to be very anal about consistency and
logic and (usually) dislike syntax-slop.  The non-coder, HTML/graphics
types I work with want consistent rules and good documentation and
examples.  I just don't see begin/end being any more or less helpful
to them.  [Although I'll grant that the ones I'm thinking of are
very much non-programmers---unskilled even in javascript.]

I think the important thing here is that you folks decide how you're
going to handle specification issues like this and then use that
framework to resolve the current question.  Maybe that means deferring
this decision until you have a specs doc and have given those of us
who are new to the project a chance to understand the ground-rules.
The issue may very well resolve itself.

But I could be wrong.

Todd

Re: benchmarking velocity

[Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>]

on 9/1/2000 5:54 PM, "Dave Glowacki" <dg...@ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:

> Jon Stevens wrote:
>> on 9/1/2000 3:40 PM, "Golden D. Blount" <go...@GoldenVisions.com> wrote:
>> Active Developers are the definite voices here. It is a different way of
>> working. Sure, we all take input from users, but unless you are contributing
>> code and/or documentation, you views don't mean anything other than a
>> consideration in the back of my mind. I'm sorry, but that is the way it is.
> 
> How many active developers are there on Velocity right now, aside
> from Jason, Daniel and you?

This is clearly defined on the website:

<http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/contributors.html>

> Is Justin an active developer?  If so, he expressed a preference
> for keeping #being/#end in as a backward compatibility measure.

He isn't an active developer.

> Exactly.  We want you to *prove* that {} is better than #begin/#end,
> not just assert that you know better than everyone else and thus
> get to discard #begin/#end

I have given my reasons why it is better and I think that they are sound. I
haven't heard a response to my reasons yet. I have also started a survey to
find out what non-engineers feel about the issue. I will give you the
responses when I get them.

> I quote:
> At some level, having Velocity at a high level position (ie: in the
> ASF) allows us to resist that type of feature crap (like adding
> #while and #begin and #end)

I don't see how that belittles anyone. Could you please explain it to me?
I'm trying to also learn here.

-jon

-- 
http://scarab.tigris.org/    | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/      | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/       | http://www.sourcexchange.com/