From: Sammy Larbi Date: 2007-04-26T20:30:48+09:00 Subject: Re: DHH vs. WHY style Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote, On 4/25/2007 4:39 PM: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Trans wrote: > >> Like to know others general opinions on having a comprehensive library >> vs. independent libraries. >> >> In my quest to make Facets' functionality available in some smaller >> parts, I am left with hard choice. I think of it as the DHH vs. WHY >> style question, b/c these two well known developers most clearly >> reflect the approaches in their work. For DHH (ie. Rails) we have a >> number of libs with closely labeled packages: ActionPack, >> ActionMailer, ActiveSupport, ActiveRecord, etc. While _why's libs all >> have highly independent packaging with clever names: Markaby, Hpricot, >> Syck, etc. Now, I realize that different circumstances have certainly >> led to this, eg. Rails is meant as a single comprehensive web- >> framework, while Why's packages are more unique and reflect his >> exceptional creatively, but either could have taken the other approach >> if they so wished. And in my case (and surely some other large >> projects as well), the distinction is not as straight forward. >> >> So my question is, which is preferable? What criteria should one base >> this decision on? >> >> To clarify here is my specific scenario. I've narrowed it down, more- >> or-less, to these Whyish vs. DHHish possibilities: >> >> Aces Facets/CORE >> Jacks Facets/BASE >> Tapestry Facets/AOP >> Comrade Facets/CLI >> Fileside Facets/FS >> Annote Facets/ANN > > Well, the names first column are library names that don't have any > imediate meaning to me and moreover overlap with other libraries' > names (Aces (distributed programming c-lib), Jacks (sound system), > Tapestry (java-lib?)), so they might be funny and clever but not helpful. > > The second column pretty clearly says what a library is about. > > So I'd prefer use/helpful to funny/clever. +1