[Zope] Re: An oldnewbie writes (Was [Zope] DTML?)

[Chris Withers]

Paul Browning wrote:
> OK, this is true of most things (computer languages, foreign
> languages, mental arithmetic, parenthood, etc) - if you don't
> use it, you lose it. But there is something about DTML that
> distinguishes it (for me) from other languages - it's the rate
> at which it decays on you. Python's decay constant is much
> more favourable.

I think this would be a very useful metric to measure how effective any
improvements to DTML are, can you stick it in the relevent wiki
somewhere?

> So I've learned a rule of thumb - if I'm writing DTML and
> it isn't flowing then I really ought to be using Python. 

This isn't always true IMHO...

> PythonMethods
> are nice but, as they stand, you only have access to built-in
> functions. So if you want to import modules you have to resort
> to External Methods. [Am I talking nonsense here? My empirical
> experience is that I can use string functions in a PythonMethod
> but not, say, stuff from the time module. Neither string nor time
> are built-in though ..... so why one and not the other?]

I hope you're talking nonsense ;-)

> The point of these reflections:
> * PythonMethods ought to be a high priority IMHO.

Very much so...

> * DTML is holding Zope back for the rest of us (and is
>   arguably a "proprietary" component of Zope (in that
>   you can't use it anywhere else) - this is a disincentive
>   to many power-Perl,JSP,<name-your-scripting-poison> users
>   I suspect.

I think all these scripting poisions are proprietery and will remain so
in that sense. The sad fact is that DTML ranks amoung the worst of them
right now, IMVHO...

> * Please can we import Python modules from PythonMethods (or
>   can we already and I don't about it, or does this break the
>   sandbox that PythonMethods is meant to provide)?

Would be nice, if not, reasons why not... :-)

> * Don't worry about changing DTML syntax. It's an excellent
>   marketing ploy to ensure good sales of the 2nd edition of
>   The Zope Book ;-)

heh :-)

Well, thanks for your views, I guess you started when it was still <!--
--> ? ;-)

cheers,

Chris