On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 05:31 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote: > 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? Making up phrases and passing them off as though they are common adages only goes towards showing that you have no steam to your argument. > 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" I won't bother looking. I have little faith in your words now. If I wanted fallacious reasoning I'd go watch a commercial on the telly. > > 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. You could ask the OP for more information rather than jump to conclusions. Sort of moot now though since the OP re-iterated that he was indeed seeking information on how to start a framework. This should have been the logical conclusion to which one would jump given that the only fact that was known was that the OP wanted guidance on how to start a framework. All else you came up with was flight of fancy. > > 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. You're welcome. > > > 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. You're not very good at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem At any rate, if you jump on the site, go to the about section and read the history, you'll see I wrote my framework for my MUD. So I fall into the "just for fun" crowd. But anyways, nowadays I use my framework pretty much every single day I work and I make good money doing so. If I were being defensive I'd have probably tried telling the OP to use my framework. I stopped evangelizing it a couple of years ago... I don't care if people use it or not *lol*. > Read what I wrote above, I'm talking about UPDATES (or the lack of), not > popularity. You implied it. > > 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. Certainly helps some. Others get by fine without a lot of money. > > > > 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 You mean "have contributed" not "has contributed" *smirk*. > 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. That would be an acceptable point perhaps but going back to your original post: "It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. Inventing the wheel over and over. Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-baked frameworks out there must be something suitable for everyone. How far would you take it? Write your own PHP, why not write your own OS, heck build your own computer while you're at it :)" It doesn't seem like you're exchanging ideas. > > 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. I have plenty of ideas, but they would mostly be based on my experience writing InterJinn and what I hate about other frameworks I've come across, as such I chose to keep quiet rather than pollute his ideology with my own and sound like I'm tooting my own horn. I often find myself writing responses to people that are based on "what I did or do" in my framework... often I delete them before sending them because I don't like how it seems impartial. once in a while it still comes up, but I'm not perfect. > > 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. Precisely. > > 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. One of the ways to do anything is to just wade in. Who are you to assess the OP's skills and determine that he is unable to make a reasonable assessment? > Oh and I see you're using the "p" word again :) pee pee? > > 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. If you go up a bit and see where I quoted your original statement you'll see that you use the following words: "Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-baked frameworks out there must be something suitable for everyone." Now assuming only a billion are in existence, and we spend a second on each one, then we find that it will take at least 31 years to review them. Yes, yes, I know you made it up like a few other phrases and points. But going back to your point about narrowing it down, you've already jumped to the conclusion that the OP has no clue what he's doing and so it follows that he probably wouldn't know how to begin narrowing down the candidates since that would require experience. > 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? I'm going to borrow a bit of your style here and make a fallacious statement... I write perfect code and I have no bugs. Haven't you heard the saying? "Rob is the perfect coder"? What about this one: "InterJinn is da bomb!" or maybe: "All your frameworks are belong to me" Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
