On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:18, Robert Cummings wrote: > I put that exact phrase (double quoted of course) into Google and > turned up the following: > > Your search - "there's a fine line between personal satisfaction > and egotism" - did not match any documents. > > I'm going to guess you just made it up. Glad you did some research. As a matter of fact I did made it up just now. Are you disputing that the saying is not widely used, or that it has no truth in it? And just for fun here's another I just made up (I've no idea what Google has to say on this): "There's a fine line between personal satisfaction and personal gratification" > Jumping to conclusions attempts to bypass logical argument and so rests > on a weak foundation. Jumping to conclusions in the literal sense (as opposed to it's negative connotation) means making a judgement based on limited facts. As long as said conclusion does not fly in the face of the known facts then where is the bypassing of logical argument? However I grant you that a judgement without all the facts is based on weak foundations. But you can't expect me to ask the OP to submit a psychological assessment and attestations of personal character from ministers/priests/preachers/mullahs of 3 major faiths, before I can ascertain what his/her motives are for asking a question. > Actually, I was suggesting giving thought to any particular worldview > before jumping on the bandwagon. I wasn't suggesting being different > for the sake of being different. It is important to make informed > decisions. Thank you. > > Again you're jumping to conclusions I never mentioned popularity. > > However when a project has not seen any updates for years and is > > still marked as "in the planning stages" then I _would_ jump to > > conclusions and assume it has been neglected/abandoned/forgotten/etc. > > I know for fact that popularity doesn't constitute quality - there's no > jumping to conclusion there. Gordon bennett, why are you so fixated on popularity, I mentioned at all in my posts. Maybe it's a Freudian [insert appropriate terminology here] because your framework is not as popular as you think it ought to be and so you're being defensive? In that case you're suffering from an inferiority complex. Read what I wrote above, I'm talking about UPDATES (or the lack of), not popularity. > The only one placing limits on what you can do is... dun dun dun... > YOU! Well maybe the government also, but that's only until you get > caught. To an extent. But a lot of money certainly helps. Unless you're limiting your fields of study to theoretical mathematics/physics. > > > You cannot discount the merit of one > > > person's contribution because you think they should have another > > > work style/ethic. On the contrary I greatly appreciate all the wonderful software that one-person bands all over the world has contributed to the public domain/free/open source space. > Exactly, and where does it say that he wants to join an existing > project? Nowhere. We're all here to exchange ideas, information, suggestions and new angles on (mis)preconceptions (at least I hope most of us are), and maybe a flame or 2. So just because the OP "did not explicitly state that he wanted to join an existing project", it does not mean that he "would not join an existing project" or "make use of an existing project" under any circumstances. Given good enough reasons he could be persuaded one way or another. > Maybe he was about to think things through and just wanted a bump in > the right direction... the right direction being "how to start my own > framework" And do you have any pearls of wisdom to start this young novice on the road to enlightenment? Given that you have apparently built your own framework I am frankly disappointed that you have nothing better to contribute than to reply to my mindless drivel. And a :) for good measure. > and not "how to join someone else's project". And as that is the best advice given the circumstances that is what I suggest. > Ahh, you discount the merit of having fun doing things like this. Many > great inventions have seen the light of day just because someone was > having fun doing them. I am not discounting that merit. But I've a feeling that the OP is not doing his large site for fun, but what do I know - I'm always jumping into conclusions. > What constitutes a fully-baked framework? Please indicate some valid > measure of "fully-baked" versus "half-baked". Your quantitative methods > of analysis will be appreciated I'm sure. And remember, popularity > isn't necessarily a measure of quality and so can't be used solely to > indicate fully-baked... maybe fully-baking, but certainly not > fully-baked. Frankly the OP cannot make a reasonable assessment as to how much baked any particular framework is then it is my sincere belief that he is in even less of a position to create new framework. Personally, how much baked a framework is has got to at least take into account whether it has the required functionality to realise the site being built, but that's probably obvious. Another thing to consider is whether the framework already has most of its planned functionality in place so more resources can be devoted to bug squashing, or it is still work in progress with possible disruptive changes in API to follow. A well documented API would be a plus, as would a developers manual. Another thing I would take into account (whilst not strictly a measure of bakedness) is whether the code is well structured and easy to follow, thus making bug fixing and contributions easier. Oh and I see you're using the "p" word again :) > To properly evaluate every framework out there where you actually study > the code and implement some test scenarios to get a fully-baked idea of > it's utility... I think you'll find that the task is quite staggering > in it's breadth. I'm pretty sure that you can narrow the field down substantially based on a few preliminaries - PHP5 only?, state of documentation, sample sites, support for localisation/internationalisation, and what have you. And if you think the task of evaluating a few frameworks staggering then how do you rate the task of creating a _decent_ framework? Even the well respected Typo3 has had a few security related problems. Well known products like Drupal and Mambo have a lot of contributors, users and lots of eyeballs studying the source and they are continually finding new vulnerabilities. Before you nitpick, yes I know the aforementioned are not frameworks as such (although Typo3 blurs the line between framework and cms), but the implications are the same, ie there will be security problems. So working as a one-person band on your very own framework how easy is it to get your code reviewed? And a security audit? -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
