[Nitro] 1.0 (revisited)
james_b at neurogami.com
Thu Feb 2 00:02:26 EST 2006
Aidan Rogers wrote:
> I think the Nitro community to date has been very focused on
> functionality and in getting stuff out there. This is why I've
> mentioned 1.0 in the past. For Nitro to become more mainstream, it
> needs a face lift.
> Compare http://www.nitrohq.com, http://www.rubyonrails.com, http://
> www.djangoproject.com - if you didn't care between Ruby and Python,
> and were researching web app development frameworks, Nitro would not
> go on your list of choices. (In fact, most sites with have Google
> ads on them automatically get less attention from some people).
Maybe. It depends on how in-your-face are the ads. But the pint is
well taken. If you have ads, the rest of the site has to rise a little
higher. (I just put the Google ads back on ruby-doc.org, and I'm less
than thrilled, but the occasional check from Google comes in handy.)
> Rails has a bunch of problems, which is probably why all of us are on
> this list. What is it they say in Robots?
> "See a need, fill a need."
Oh, very much so. And, while there are similarities, they are different
enough, with different strengths, that people should not see them as
> Nitro has the potential to allow simple creation of extremely
> powerful and very attractive web sites, without needing in depth
> knowledge of:
> 1) HTML/CSS
> 3) SQL
But, and this is important, using Nitro should not trip you up when you
want to go do all that stuff by hand.
> If I were in charge of this project, I would set a goal to reach that
> state. Create some milestones saying "We need to be able to provide
> X, Y, Z functionality." Throw them out to this community and get
> feedback, and then set the direction based on those milestones.
> I've been using Og for developing a web-service application, and this
> app also needs some web-based front-end work. However, my business
> partner has been questioning my choice of technology - he _does_ the
> comparison between Rails and Nitro, and on the surface Nitro comes up
> short. I'm happy to contribute my time and resources (whether that
> be materials or money) to getting Nitro to the level where it is a
> serious competitor to Rails.
I've done a few Rails apps, and at least two live Nitro apps, and it is
not uncommon that, while struggling with some ill-documented or
poorly-named or bizarrely-magical counter-intuitive Rails thing that I
think, "This would go so much smoother with Nitro." But I have partners
who also need to run with the code, and truthfully it is easier for them
to get up to speed with Rails than Nitro.
> I've started a business that needs to use a framework like Og/Nitro
> or Rails. I don't want to be forced down the Railway Track :-)
The biggest headache I had with Nitro was that, just when I thought I
was getting my head around it, the API would change. And change. And
change. That seems to have settled down, and when the API becomes truly
stable it will be a great deal easier to use, document, and promote to
others via blogs, magazine articles, conference presentations, and the
> p.s. Apologies if this comes across as a rant
I think it was right on target.
More information about the Nitro-general