[Zope3-Users] What is the status on Zope4?

[Milind Khadilkar]

Hi everyone,
Hope Zope is being used in its different forms very actively all over, the silence on this list notwithstanding.
I have not followed Zope for more than a year now, but do visit the site once in a while.

Is Zope4 planned as a sort of "named" release with downloadables? Or would there be an implicit release when all constituents have achieved what is expected from them in Zope4?

Thanks.

Best wishes

Milind Khadilkar

[Christopher Lozinski]

On 9/6/14, 3:01 PM, Milind Khadilkar wrote:
> the silence on this list notwithstanding.

I am happily using Grok. It is based on ZTK, but makes life much easier.

There is another person I now of who also recently started using Grok.

What are you planning on doing?

Regards
Chris

_______________________________________________
Zope3-users mailing list
Zope3...@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users

[Andreas Jung]

Better look into Pyramid

Regards
Andreas Jung
-----
Sorry for being brief - sent from a mobile device.

[Milind Khadilkar]

Afraid I am no longer actively looking for a development platform...

Have been involved with teams working on Zope2, Zope3, Grok, ZTK and to some extent Pyramid... over a 12 year period ( :( no contribution to community, alas!) but not at this point.

But every now and then discussions bring up Zope, and well, with lot of fondness, the kind of fondness reserved for memories of the dead... and I hope to be able to shout out and say "Hey, look at Zope4".

I still remember that Philip von Weitershausen had said in the promotional of his forthcoming book that Zope4 makes Grok look so old...

Note the present tense. (of course thereafter he called it a April Fool's joke)

Hence I wondered, where is Zope4.

[Andreas Jung]

The anwser is: Zope is dead. Move on

Regards

Andreas Jung

-----

Sorry for being brief - sent from a mobile device.

[Christopher Lozinski]

On 9/6/14, 5:00 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
> Better look into Pyramid

I did look at pyramid. Multiple times. My highest respects to Chrism.

So why am I using Grok instead of Pyramid?

Pyramid has a bit of an idenity issue. Is it for relational databases,
or the Zope Object Database? Is it for Traversal or for URL dispatch?
Then there are three different ways of configuring it. And multiple
different templating systems.

If you are a consultant, than pyramid is just the thing. Whatever the
customer wants, he gets. You want fry's with that. Great. You got it.

Grok is for the purist. ZODB is expected, although one can call a
relational database. Grokers are how it is configured although ZCML can
be used. Page Templates are used for templating, although other options
are possible. Traversal is your only option, although it can be
replaced. Indeed I just replaced grokcore.traverser. I have a clear
mental model of Grok.

A uniform mental model has a number of advantages. First it leads to
simpler code, although grok could use a code cleanup.

Another benefit is that one can do more interesting things on top of a
uniform base. I can build on top of all of the work that others have
done in Grok. For example, I am reusing the very rich Zope 2 page
templates for containers. No idea how Zopache would work with url
dispatch. Just too complicated.

And eventually there wil be performance benefits. Like the risc chips,
or the optimizations on the Objective-C dispatcher, a simpler model can
be more effectively optimized.

Another Pyramid issue is that all these options lead to code
complexity. I was just reading a posting on that this morning.
Worse yet that code has been optimized making it even harder to understand.

On the issue of optimizing for humans vs Computers. Pyramid code has
been highly optimized. For computers that is, not for people.
Optimizing code for computer performance makes it pessimal for human
understandability. Not that grok is brilliant on this point either, but
i could easily imagine Grok going on the Paleolithic diet, and becoming
a very small understandable code base, with modules that could be easily
swapped in by those who want to optimize for performance rather than for
people.

I should add that I am quite enjoying writing for Grok.

But the most important reason, is that I really like the logo
of Grok the friendly caveman.



Regards
Chris

[Andreas Jung]

This nonsense needs some remarks....


2014-09-06 18:02 GMT+02:00 Christopher Lozinski <lozi...@freerecruiting.com
>:

>
> On 9/6/14, 5:00 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
> > Better look into Pyramid
>
>  I did look at pyramid.  Multiple times.  My highest respects to Chrism.
>
> So why am I using Grok instead of Pyramid?
>
> Pyramid has a bit of an idenity issue.


It has? Never heard of that...this is _your_ own opinion.


> Is it for relational databases,
> or the Zope Object Database?  Is it for Traversal or for URL dispatch?
> Then there are three different ways of configuring it.  And multiple
> different templating systems.
>

Pyramid gives me as a programmer the freedom to choose the database, the
routing mechanism and the template language that
I need and that I want for my projects. It does not tell me to: you have to
use this and this...this is _freedom_ and not an identity issue.

>
> If you are a consultant, than pyramid is just the thing.  Whatever the
> customer wants, he gets.  You want fry's with that. Great.  You got it.
>

Stupid remark. Either you are a programmer or you are not.


>
> Grok is for the purist.    ZODB is expected, although one can call a
> relational database.  Grokers are how it is configured although ZCML can
> be used.  Page Templates are used for templating, although other options
> are possible.  Traversal is your only option, although it can be
> replaced. Indeed I just replaced grokcore.traverser.   I have a clear
> mental model of Grok.
>

Constraints are perhaps a good thing if you are a programmer with a very
limited horizon
or if you need holding-hands with having only only possible option for
doing database, routing and templating.


> A uniform mental model has  a number of  advantages.  First it leads to
> simpler code,


Bullshit - where is a Pyramid application more complex than a related Grok
application?


>
> And eventually there wil be performance benefits.  Like the risc chips,
> or the optimizations on the Objective-C dispatcher, a simpler model can
> be more effectively optimized.
>

Nobody cares about such micro-optimization aspects.

>
> Another Pyramid issue is that all these options lead to code
> complexity.


Once again: bullshit! Complex application code remains complex independent
of the web framework. Provide some evidence for your claim.


> I was just reading a posting on that this morning.
>

Means you are repeating phrases without citing the source and likely
without having real world experience with small and large Pyramid projects?!


> Worse yet that code has been optimized making it even harder to understand.
>

So much bullshit, FUD in one sentence....provide evidence please.
Pyramid is usually every easy to understand when it comes to the Pyramid and
webframework related aspects. Bad application code can be written with
Pyramid
and Grok.


>
> On the issue of optimizing for humans vs Computers.   Pyramid code has
> been highly optimized.  For computers that is, not for people.


What a stupid blathering.......explain your nonsense and provide evidence.
This whole article read as you if you were on drugs while writing these
lines.


> Optimizing code for computer performance makes it pessimal for human
> understandability.  Not that grok is brilliant on this point either, but
> i could easily imagine Grok going on the Paleolithic diet, and becoming
> a very small understandable code base, with modules that could be easily
> swapped in by those who want to optimize for performance rather than for
> people.
>
>
-aj

[Christopher Lozinski]

 

On 9/6/14, 9:27 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:

 without citing the source 

My Apologies.  Here it is.

http://slacy.com/blog/2011/02/why-im-unhappy-with-the-pyramid-web-framework/

I quote:

I’m having to read through the Pyramid source code trying to figure out what the heck is going on with configuration.
At it’s heart, the problem with Pyramid is also what makes it great:  They don’t prescribe any one way to do anything.

On 9/6/14, 9:27 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:

> Worse yet that code has been optimized making it even harder to understand.
>

So much bullshit,

Well for this one, I will just quote from
"Defending Pyramid's Design"
presumably written by ChrisM himself.


http://docs.pylonsproject.org/projects/pyramid/en/1.3-branch/designdefense.html


  "We optimize Pyramid aggressively. This comes at a cost: the core code has sections that could be expressed more readably. As an amelioration, we’ve commented these sections liberally."

And that is the author's presumably generous description. 

So is ChrisM also a bullshitter?   Then I am in good company. 

I really do have the highest respect for ChrisM, and Pyramid.  And I do think it is a valid choice to use a tool that keeps your options open.  But there is also a valid choice to have a certain way of doing things.   There is a philosophical difference between Grok and Pyramid, and it is important that someone points it out.  I think of Grok as more of a purist approach. 

I like grok. 

Thank you for encouraging a lively discussion. 

[Carlos de la Guardia]

There certainly won't be a Zope 4, but if you liked Zope and prefer more opinionated ways of doing things, you can take a look at SubstanceD, which is one of Pyramid's full stack offerings and a tiny bit what Zope 4 could have been.

http://substanced.net/

Carlos de la Guardia

[Milind Khadilkar]

Thanks, Carlos, for expressing certainty that there will be no Zope4 (that was the simple question I had asked!

Thanks also for pointing out substancedD.

Will definitely go through it.

Just one question: is the "civilized" in

Build civilized web applications

a dig at the caveman?

[Carlos de la Guardia]

No dig. We love the caveman.

Carlos de la Guardia

[Milind Khadilkar]

Thanks!
:)

Milind Khadilkar

[Andreas Jung]

2014-09-06 22:39 GMT+02:00 Christopher Lozinski <lozi...@freerecruiting.com>:

 

On 9/6/14, 9:27 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:

 without citing the source 

My Apologies.  Here it is.

http://slacy.com/blog/2011/02/why-im-unhappy-with-the-pyramid-web-framework/

I quote:

I’m having to read through the Pyramid source code trying to figure out what the heck is going on with configuration.
At it’s heart, the problem with Pyramid is also what makes it great:  They don’t prescribe any one way to do anything.

This blog post is basically nonsense. It is three years old, application site configuration are clearly documented in the

every expressive Pyramid documentation and you usually never need to get in touch with the Pyramid sources yourself.

I am using Pyramid in small and big projects for years and I _never_ had to look into the Pyramid source code for achieving

some functionality or whatever! And this is likely true for your applications...

 

On 9/6/14, 9:27 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:

> Worse yet that code has been optimized making it even harder to understand.
>

So much bullshit,

Well for this one, I will just quote from
"Defending Pyramid's Design"
presumably written by ChrisM himself.


http://docs.pylonsproject.org/projects/pyramid/en/1.3-branch/designdefense.html


  "We optimize Pyramid aggressively. This comes at a cost: the core code has sections that could be expressed more readably. As an amelioration, we’ve commented these sections liberally."

And that is the author's presumably generous description. 

So is ChrisM also a bullshitter?   Then I am in good company. 

Who care what is happening under hood and why? As stated above: there is usually no need to look under the hood of Pyramid.

If you have a reason to do so: please your usecase. Pyramid has great documentation (compared to Zope & friends) and does not require

to check the implementation in order to understand how Pyramid works. IT IS DOCUMENTED.

 

I really do have the highest respect for ChrisM, and Pyramid.  And I do think it is a valid choice to use a tool that keeps your options open.  But there is also a valid choice to have a certain way of doing things.   There is a philosophical difference between Grok and Pyramid, and it is important that someone points it out. 

Most of your point are basically wrong and  nonsense based on missing information, lack of experience and your special view on things as we have seen in your annual weird postings over the last decade.

-aj