> > That only serves to illustrate how bad your judgment is.  Since when
> > do you have a clue about JS and/or browser scripting?

> You seem not to be a very good programmer: quality exists at a higher
> level than a particular language's syntax, and any good programmer knows
> that.

> > And how did you miss the bits we went over here?  

> The good news is I am using qooxdoo and will never have to waste my time
> on that crap.

> > That's obviously low-
> > level code, which means they've piled a ton of other abstractions on
> > top of a completely asinine design.  Changing the bad low-level
> > design(s) will likely entail rewriting much of what sits atop it.  In
> > other words, they got way too far ahead of themselves and are now
> > screwed (as are you).

> >>> Like similar libraries/frameworks, qooxdoo forks based on browser
> >>> sniffs.  So when a new version of IE (for example) comes out and
> >>> invalidates their ill-advised inferences, they have two choices:-
> >>> 1. Add more forks based on the sniffed version of IE
> >>> 2. Declare the older versions of IE "dead"
> >>> The first choice obviously makes the code longer, messier and harder
> >>> to maintain with each iteration.  To see the long-term effects of such
> >>> a strategy, take a gander at the Dojo source.
> >>> The second, despite its recent popularity, is insane as the end-users
> >>> don't know their browsers are deceased.  There are plenty of users
> >>> stuck with IE6/7 with no recourse (e.g. corporate users).  XP users
> >>> will never see IE9, so are forever stuck with IE8 (which they can
> >>> change to work like IE7 with a single button push).  And no, you can't
> >>> just tell them to download FF.  Some users aren't allowed to install
> >>> alternate browsers and others don't know what a browser is.
> >>> And the last thing you should want is to have to swap out a complex
> >>> blob of JS, just to "keep up" with new browsers.  Invariably, there
> >>> will be compatibility problems as rearranging their browser sniffing
> >>> will not be all those "engineers" are up to in the interim.  You'll
> >>> inherit lots of "nice-to-have" features suggested by other users
> >>> (assuming qooxdoo has any other users at this point).
> >>> Also, how did you come up with 0.01%?  It sounds arbitrary and self-
> >>> serving (or perhaps self-deluding).
> >> You stipulated undiscovered browser or new version of a popular browser
> >> during its first week, the longest it would take for qooxdoo to
> >> adopt...

> > I recognize the words, but that sentence makes no sense.

> >> OK, 0.01% might be high.

> > I think you are high.  :)

> >>>  Remember that qooxdoo is going to
> >>> be much too bloated and slow for most mobile devices (and you can't
> >>> patch that).  Did you factor that into your equation?
> >> Not my market, fortunately. I am also fotunate in that I am doing a rixh
> >> web app where someone would likely work for 30min at a minimum, so pages
> >> can take 5s to load.

> > But I thought you said qooxdoo was the "fastest". (?)

> Once it is loaded, yep.

> >>> These concepts are not difficult to understand.  I rarely have trouble
> >>> explaining them to non-programmers.
> >>>>>>>> Maybe for my next effort, if you 'll do an LGPL license for it.
> >>>>>>> Last I checked it had an MIT license.  That was the consensus choice.
> >>>>>>> I have no idea how that differs from an LGPL license and don't care to
> >>>>>>> find out.  Use it or don't.
> >>>>>> Oh, great, I do MIT, too. Last /I/ checked your stuff was licensed "ask me".
> >>>>> Yeah, and lots did.  Most of those got a free license.  People who
> >>>>> didn't ask got nothing.  Go figure.  :)
> >>>> Oh, you just wanted to have us come grovelling to your door hat in hand?
> >>>> Great!
> >>> You seem to have amnesia as we went over this some time back.  The
> >>> point was that I would grant licenses on a case-by-case basis.
> >>>>>> Well, see if you like this:
> >>>>>>http://wiki.github.com/kennytilton/qooxlisp/the-cells-insidetm-qooxlisp
> >>>>> What about it?
> >>>> Wow, you learned nothing, eh? That is the price of knowing everything, I
> >>>> guess. But at least you know everything.
> >>> You sound drunk.  What was I supposed to learn from that?  You posted
> >>> a link to an article with no context.  Again, what about it?
> >>>>>> We could do the same with raw HTML/js
> >>>>> Raw HTML?
> >>>> Keep up the good fight! Still programming in assembly language?
> >>>> :)
> >>> That doesn't make any sense either.  I am programming in the same
> >>> language as you and your "engineer" friends.  HTH.
> >> Sorry, are you autistic?

> > Ah, don't apologize (except perhaps to those afflicted with autism).

> >> It was analogy.

> > Nope.

> Yup. Maybe you are too young to get it.