On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Tom Neff wrote:

"Here, this ought to work - untested, try at your own risk" followed by some DTML, it would have been a little better if they took 60 seconds and threw it into a dummy method to make sure before posting, but I appreciate that not everyone has the time and it's better to at least get something to try. But if you can test first, I still hope you will. (I did, even on that silly little Content-Type: tip, even though I've used the technique several times before, because I didn't want to suffer the indignity of posters pointing out "Uh, you forgot the ______".)

Agreed. But in many cases even for simple replies, one has to recreate a lot of objects to actually try out anything. For instance, if someone asks a question about a complicated acquisition path, I will personally try it out before I answer as giving the wrong answer can cause confusion, but if someone is anaware that a DateTime object supports a lot of useful methods and his/she is trying to figure a complicate DTML way to get the day of the year, then a simple pointer to the source code where all the methods are listed and an example of the sort: (untested) <dtml-var "whateverdatetimeobject.get<whatever>()"> should be enough, even though I will go the extra length and give the correct (tested) method, it is IMO unneccessary.

But what I have no patience for is outright MIS-information, posted as if it were reliable fact, when a moment's checking would have disproved it.

If it is a moment checking then I would agree. Otherwise taging something as untested is a reasonable compromise. Pavlos

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Guy N. Hurst wrote:

J C Lawrence wrote:

...

...

I would much rather have "likely to be correct" answers posted to the list than no answers posted at all. If some level of confusion is the result of that, so be it. I'm sure the confused (of which I'm often one) can learn to ignore the "I haven't tested this" posts if they really need to.

This is only to underscore the fact that Zope is not ready for prime time.

I suppose that depends on one's definition of "prime time".

Something like Perl or PHP would have definitive, known answers for most all issues.

Perl and PHP have been around longer than Zope has (at least, in its Open Source form.)

Resident experts are scattered everywhere. It is like taking your broken-down vehicle to a certified mechanic, and getting it fixed.

People have had the time to become experts at Perl and PHP. Relatively few have had the time to become such with Zope. They ARE out there, though. I don't want to resort to naming names (because they would just be the people _I_ consider to be experts), but trust me, they exist. I have dealth with a few of them. (And, no, they are not DC employees.)

MY OPINION The problem with Zope is, hardly anyone seems to know what is really going on under the hood (but hey, you're not supposed to need to know),

Who in the world ever told you you're not supposed to need to know? I don't know about you, but to me, this is simply a part of educating yourself. It's expected on ANY platform to do a good job. You don't need to know what's going on inside the Perl interpreter to write Perl. However, I would argue that those who do can write better perl, simply because they understand how the interpreter is going to handle the code they write. This is Computer _Science_, after all. [snip]

I think only a hobbyist can maintain the excitement of enduring all the pitfalls, traps, and rewarding features that can be discovered. It is really like an adventure -- if you have the time and desire.

I am not a hobbyist. I am singly responsibly for switching my entire organization of fourteen people over to Zope. I educated myself about Zope, by reading the documentation, this list, and studying the source. I am no expert, but I have not run into any walls in Zope, yet. It usually takes me about ten minutes of reading the source to figure out what I'm doing wrong. We also bought a support contract with DC. When I can't figure out something for myself, Jim has always given me correct, and timely, answer to all my questions.

But I am not a hobbyist, and to tell you the truth, I am just plain fed up. I am being sold a pan and a shovel while hearing claims of gold.

Again, who is selling you anything. You are being given the privelage to work, at no cost to you, with a pretty powerful code base written by DC's staff. I think DC and the Zope community are working hard to make Zope easier to understand, easier to use, and easier to maintain. But, I've never heard anyone bill Zope as anything but extremely powerful (it is), free (it is), and supported (it is).

Sure, there is gold - but no one is going to give it to you.

TANSTAAFL. [snip]

And the few experts who are contributing their knowledge to the list are not making up for it all.

I have none of the confusion you do. I have none of the anger you do. I have gotten plenty of good, solid answers from this list. Somewhere, we differ.

Zope is supposed to be easy and do all the work for me, so I can just drop in pre-made products/modules/classes or whatever. You know, assemble-your-own-site. Well, you really can't do that! Not easily. Not using all the capabilities I was hoping. Not in a reasonable amount of time.

Zope is an application server, a platform on which you can _BUILD_ your own applications. I have news for you: There is NO product that lets you just "snap" together your own site that does everything you would ever want. It's called a panacea, and they don't exist. Again, this is computer _SCIENCE_. Science is hard. If you don't like that word, call it Software _ENGINEERING_. Engineering is hard. Whoever told you it was easy deserves your anger, not Zope or DC.

Reusability in Zope turns out, in many cases, to be no easier - and in fact, harder - than reusing code in Perl, PHP, or other languages where the system is being made by an expert in his field.

I disagree. Reusing well-written products in Zope is easier than reusing raw Python (thanks to the web interface and the Product architeture). And, I would argue, reusing Python is at least _as easy_ as reusing Perl. So, we can't be far off, here.

Zope is no better than any other system requiring an expert.

So, so true. I don't think it aims to be. Nor do I think any application server SHOULD. [snip]

Comments? Is anyone else fed up?

Consider this my 2 cents. And no, I am not fed up. In fact, I am far from it.

Guy N. Hurst

--Jeff --- Jeff K. Hoffman 704.849.0731 x108 Chief Technology Officer mailto:jeff@goingv.com Going Virtual, L.L.C. http://www.goingv.com/

"Guy N. Hurst" wrote:

J C Lawrence wrote:

...

...

I would much rather have "likely to be correct" answers posted to the list than no answers posted at all. If some level of confusion is the result of that, so be it. I'm sure the confused (of which I'm often one) can learn to ignore the "I haven't tested this" posts if they really need to.

This is only to underscore the fact that Zope is not ready for prime time. It goes beyond just posting untested results.

Something like Perl or PHP would have definitive, known answers for most all issues. Resident experts are scattered everywhere. It is like taking your broken-down vehicle to a certified mechanic, and getting it fixed.

If you believe Perl and/or PHP has everything all figured out, with 'definitive, known answers', you have indeed been sold a line by someone, and it isn't Zopesters. No single language or platform has the answers to everthing. Ask 50 'resident experts' in Perl how to do a given task, and you'll get 75 different answers. Take a trip to the CGI archive sites, and you'll find many somewhat simple tasks done in dozens of ways. If the above paragraph is your definition of 'ready for prime time', Perl, PHP, C, C++, Java, Shell, are all not ready for prime time.

MY OPINION The problem with Zope is, hardly anyone seems to know what is really going on under the hood (but hey, you're not supposed to need to know), and it is too often that it is left to anyone's guess why something doesn't work - or even why it in fact does work a certain way. No one is certified, and no one claims to be, either. It is like the wild west,

And 'certification' solves ills? I emphatically disagree with both the idea that only few know what is 'going on under the hood', and that one isn't supposed to know. The vast array of answers, the increasing number of How-Tos and Products stand in staunch opposition to your claim. Ever examined the Perl or PHP source code? Do think very many of the 'experts' in these have?

too, because no one's work is sheriffed in a manner to maintain order. And there are plenty of enthusiasts setting up their homestead, willing to endure these hardships. (Can be pretty exciting, you know).

If you check the credential of many of the Zope contributors, I'd put up money that they are far more than 'enthusiasts'.

I think only a hobbyist can maintain the excitement of enduring all the pitfalls, traps, and rewarding features that can be discovered. It is really like an adventure -- if you have the time and desire.

That line of reasoning says that business cannot come up with, or maintain usefull, creative software. Something tells me this line of reasoning falls down. Perhaps it is experience, showing me the opposite is true.

But I am not a hobbyist, and to tell you the truth, I am just plain fed up. I am being sold a pan and a shovel while hearing claims of gold.

No one is twisting your arm. Nowhere do I see _anyone_ making claims like this. YOU chose to support/use Zope if your clients desired it. Nobody here is forcing you to do it.

Sure, there is gold - but no one is going to give it to you. **But the hype is that it IS being given to you.**

Where _exactly_ is this 'hype' coming from? References, please.

That would only apply if you needed some simple things. Some things that fit the mold of what Zope can readily offer. Whoever you may be, I insist you stop hyping Zope to the point of making false and misleading claims, even if only implicitly.

I would _ask_ you refrain from insisting 'we' stop doing that which we are not doing. Consider the possibility that you misinterpreted what is available. It happens frequently (generally speaking here). We see something new, it is exciting, growing, and offers new ways of doing things; suddenly it is 'the holy grail', especially witn dealing with 'implicit' claims. Implication, like elegance, is often in the mind of the receiver.

It goes from being simple-and-easy, to do-it-yourself-you're-on-your-own. It goes from being a well-thought-out system, to guess-the-syntax-today. It goes from being cross-platform-support to oh-we-don't-actually-use-IIS. It goes from having community-contributed-solutions to community-spread-bugs. It goes from open-source application server to oh-you-have-to-pay-for-THAT. It goes from you-don't-need-to-know-python to you-should-really-know-python. It goes from you-can-always-use-external-methods to you-shouldn't-use-external-methods. It goes from we're-ready-now to we're-working-on-it. It goes from reduced-code-management to increased-server-resources-management. ..etc!

I am tired of the enthusiasm now, because on closer inspection, I have found plainly false and misleading claims. Even by well-meaning people. And it has to do with ignorance of how Zope actually works. But supposedly you don't need to know! I say baloney.

Again, show where people have claimed one isn't supposed to know? The fact that Zope is open source, stands in stark contrast to this claim.

All the enthusiastic things I have come across only really apply to a subset of the features I would actually need to implement, anyway.

So implement them your ownself. This is open source after all. excercise a little personal initiative, and the responsisbility that comes with being a developer. you claim to be a zope developer, do it. Developer make things, not whine that no one else has already made a product that mets their specific needs.

Sure, there are things to be excited about. But just because Zope exceeds by 1000% the capabilities of some commercial applications in a few areas, does not mean it does so in the other areas businesses rely on!!

And this statement applies equally to PHP, CGI, <insert web-related thing here>.

Besides the baloney, are the half-baked answers given as bread to eat.

Instead of seeing well-measured, sensible analyses of this, I see people saying "so-and-so survived the slashdot effect, so it must be

Since you jumped streams, I'l have to assume you are now talking about the traffic capabilities of Zope. To claim that none have posted any measured analyses of Zope's capabilities and gotchas in this arena is to be completely ignorant of what has been posted here, or intentional dishonesty. A quick search of the archives will reveal several postings with hard data.

good", "haven't heard of any problems with high-traffic sites", "shouldn't have any problems", "FAST CGI is the way to go", etc., whereas Perens' site had almost no graphics, DC really DOES know of a high-traffic site having problems, the list is FULL of reported problems, and FAST CGI isn't supported on NT for free.

You expect DC to support Zope on everthing in all situations for free?

And I could spend hours giving many more examples.

I have seen absolutely one vague example.

I AM FED UP.

The I suggest you have a heart to heart discussion with this individual that is blowing smoke in your direction, not virulently attack a community of developers _giving_ away their knowledge, time, and fruits of their efforts.

And I am not the only one, either.

And the few experts who are contributing their knowledge to the list are not making up for it all.

There really is misinformation about the virtues of Zope abounding. Unfortunately, it is just misinformation. It really cannot do as many things as are claimed/suggested/hinted/implied. Some of the posts people make to help others are based on this misinformation.

Every subject has people trying to help people with less than perfect answers. If you are expecting different, the problem is on your side, not the fault of the folks at DC, nor the fault of the many volunteers giving of themselves. Take a trip to the cesspool of misinformation that is comp.lang.perl.

Zope is supposed to be easy and do all the work for me,

No, it is not. Never have I seen any claims that it is.

so I can just drop in pre-made products/modules/classes or whatever. You know, assemble-your-own-site.

Again, absolutely zero times have I seen anyone make this claim. Indeed, you are the first.

Well, you really can't do that! Not easily. Not using all the capabilities I was hoping. Not in a reasonable amount of time.

And you expect others to do all your work? Every individual's needs are different. As a result, not a single environment or software product can _ever_ fulfill your expectations.

Yes, this is my opinion, but it is based on my experience.

Reusability in Zope turns out, in many cases, to be no easier - and in fact, harder - than reusing code in Perl, PHP, or other languages where the system is being made by an expert in his field.

I will submit your alleged experience is just that, alleged. An example of code reuse: <dtml-var standard_html_header> There, I just resused several functions, and much work on several of my sites. It simply doesn't get any easier than that. In many ways it is even easier than: 'use CGI.pm ' for example, or #include <errno.h>.

It seems that, when there are problems in Zope, expertise is still required. But that seems to defeat the point of why Zope is being

And where does one turn to when having problems with <insert language here>?

Zope is no better than any other system requiring an expert. Actually, it's worse. Zope framework seems too complex and changable to have any sort of resident expert to begin with. You'd have to know all the Products, etc., which are not held to any sort of standard. I may as well develop my own system than assemble parts of things with unknown, unpredictable surprises in store.

You have yet to show any evidence of this claim, and have yet to show any evidence that your personal preferences of Perl and PHP are any better in these regards. In fact, I will submit that perl, with it's thousand ways of doing a single, simple task is far, far worse. To be able to support other people's code, you have to learn these thousands of other ways of doing the same thing. But you see, you are making a critical error in all of your arguments when you compare Zope to perl or php. Apples and oranges. Perl is a _scripting_language_. So is PHP. Zope is not language.

Why am I saying this? To counter those with unbounded/misguided enthusiasm for something which is not worthy of it. And maybe to prevent some other people from turning sour after not keeping their cool when the claims turn out to be just a bunch of hot air.

...sounds very trollish...

Zope may not be suitable for things more complex than weblogs and news syndication, and maybe internal workflow solutions. Zope can certainly handle such purposes with ease. Its XML capabilities certainly hold value. Among other things. But that doesn't make it a killer app.

I have deployed a number of complex sites for a large corporation that far outweight your examples in the complexity department. Just because _you_ can't or have not doen so does not mean Zope cannot be used to do so.

In any case, it seems to me that the posting behavior problem is related to the claims made about Zope versus the problems inherent to Zope, and

All that you have described in terms of posting 'behaviour' are prevalent (indeed are held as virtues) in others such as the perl community.

the kinds of groups of people who have taken to using it with dedication.

While DC may not be responsible for the misleading and /or clueless claims of Zope followers, their business will probably end up suffering for it in the long run.

Not likely, since you are first I have ever even heard of that makes these claims, let alone see anyone performing these actions. Perl has literally thousands of clueless advocates and clueless claims, yet you don't see it falling victim.

Comments? Is anyone else fed up?

I don't mean for this to sound like an attack, but I believe, based upon your posting, that the expectations you had were a result of your interpretation. After searching various mailing list collections for posts with "hurst" in them anywhere, I see very little to support your claims. I see no preaching to you about how Zope is the end-all-be-all to websites. I see no posts from you asking for assistance. In fact, I see precisely four posts from you, counting this one. I see no posts in reply to, or containing yours, that come _anywhere_ near your claims of ignorance and proseletyzing. In fact, I see the opposite. In fact, I do see on another list, you having done some of the very things you whine about in this post, in regards to PHP. If you don't ask for help, no one can help. I IMO, if you don't want to pay for support, and you don't ask the people who will willingly answer your questions to the best of their ability, you lose any rights to whine, insult, and lambaste them. While I am sure there may be persons on this list who will disapprove of what may seem to be 'heavy handed' comments in this post, I will stand by them. Few thinkgs irritate me more than the attitude displayed in your post. -- In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks. -- Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900