[Catalyst] RFC: The paradox of choice in web development

[Kirby Krueger]

On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Rockway wrote:

>> The community will benefit from more bloggers and success  
>> stories ....
>
> Actually, the community will probably benefit most from writing code.
> Talking about talking about something doesn't actually buy you much.
> New modules that make programming easier are definitely more appealing
> all around.
>
Well, yes and no.  Not everyone has the same skillset.  Some people  
you want spending time working on the code and please don't use your  
special brand of 'help' on new people.  Other people have excellent  
communication skills, and may not necessarily be at the level of coder  
you want making best-practices tools for others (but Catalyst helps  
them write their own stuff that still works, even if they've still got  
a few lumps to take as a coder.)

> It's also important to keep in mind that 99% of people that read  
> social
> news sites (like Programming Reddit) are idiots that only read things
> they agree with.  Wasting your time trying to "educate" these folks is
> just going to make you very, very bitter.

There's a lot of truth to this.  There's a reason that programming  
language discussions in the wild Internet are so personal - because  
they are.  I've invested a lot of time becoming a perl expert, not a  
java expert, and so I do care that most of the semi-technical people  
out there incorrectly think that java is a better language - it means  
less job postings, so less likelihood I'll be able to end up with  
something where I like the work and salary.  But since these things  
are so personal and high stakes, they're deeply unpleasant to  
participate in and not winnable.  Never post in the comments of a  
programming language discussion on Slashdot - it's just unpleasant.

On the other hand, there are less hostile forums, and they do matter.   
Not that long ago, I was starting up a major web project and needed to  
pick a platform to start with.  I chose Catalyst for several reasons.   
This active mailing list is a big one, the existence of your book was  
another.  Being able to work through the example in a few days gave me  
a lot of confidence that I could work with the framework.  Seeing  
Catalyst mentioned in talks at the Open Source conference, seeing it  
mentioned in blog posts, it helps the person choosing to think, "This  
is the project that's actively improving and I won't regret sticking  
with in six months."  As opposed to, for instance, Solstice - the  
mailing list is almost dead, there's very little that turns up on a  
web search for help, no basic 'make a sample app in a day!' document,  
no buzz.

It's obviously much more important that Catalyst works well, is  
extensible, and has good support, but that sort of thing is very hard  
to actually see when you're buzzing by options if people aren't  
talking about them.  I think Catalyst's primary market right now is  
experienced perl developers that have built frameworks from scratch  
and don't want to do it again, and it's emitting decent pollen to  
attract those.  It doesn't do much for the new developer looking for  
an easy way to make a dynamic web site - Ruby on Rails is winning  
that.  And maybe everyone is happier that way?

I guess, my point is don't utterly give up on the idea of benefits for  
talking about things.  Avoid the trolly parts of the Internet, target  
places where perl is already the cultural norm, but it does matter  
that we've attracted a lot of bright minds to this project, and  
they're telling people about it.

-- Kirby