3 ms·

He is implying with the evidence that werkzeug which he wrote is much bigger than bottle owing to complexities of wsgi/http, and bottle's smaller size means eit

by irahul 13y ago

He is implying with the evidence that werkzeug which he wrote is much bigger than bottle owing to complexities of wsgi/http, and bottle's smaller size means either the implementation is incomplete or the implementation is too clever or both.

coldtea 13y ago
Still no evidence in your comment. Repeating his "I had to make X big to support all of wsgi/http so anyone who made a similar framework but much smaller has made it incomplete or too succint and clever in a bad way" is not evidence. You say: >bottle's smaller size means either the implementation is incomplete or the implementation is too clever or both. That's a statement of fact (actually a dichotomy of facts). What's the evidence to support these are the only two possible options? The mere fact that Armin had to make Werkzeug bigger "owing to complexities of wsgi/http" is not proof. To take it as proof is to assume his coding (and understanding of wsgi/http) as the golden standard by which the Bottle developer should be measured. Who said this is the case? For one, it took him a year after Bottle to support Python 3, so he might not be that focused, anyway. My problem is that, the way he and you say it, "incomplete" implies broken or lacking, whereas "too clever" implies fancy tricky code that's too succinct for it's own good. How about the third option that he needlessly convoluted Werkzeug to work around wsgi/http edge cases that no one really faces, whereas Bottle has been pragmatic about it? Or the fourth option, that Werkzeug is needlessly verbose, whereas Bottle is not "too clever" but just as clever as needed?
- jessaustin 13y ago
  It would have taken less effort just to try out both frameworks, and then you wouldn't need anyone else's "evidence".
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >It would have taken less effort just to try out both frameworks, and then you wouldn't need anyone else's "evidence" I've tried both frameworks, and looked at the code for both, and I'm of the opposite opinion. Yours is not a very suggestion. It presupposes what is asked to provide evidence for. That's called a circular argument.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

by irahul 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago

Still no evidence in your comment. Repeating his "I had to make X big to support all of wsgi/http so anyone who made a similar framework but much smaller has made it incomplete or too succint and clever in a bad way" is not evidence. You say: >bottle's smaller size means either the implementation is incomplete or the implementation is too clever or both. That's a statement of fact (actually a dichotomy of facts). What's the evidence to support these are the only two possible options? The mere fact that Armin had to make Werkzeug bigger "owing to complexities of wsgi/http" is not proof. To take it as proof is to assume his coding (and understanding of wsgi/http) as the golden standard by which the Bottle developer should be measured. Who said this is the case? For one, it took him a year after Bottle to support Python 3, so he might not be that focused, anyway. My problem is that, the way he and you say it, "incomplete" implies broken or lacking, whereas "too clever" implies fancy tricky code that's too succinct for it's own good. How about the third option that he needlessly convoluted Werkzeug to work around wsgi/http edge cases that no one really faces, whereas Bottle has been pragmatic about it? Or the fourth option, that Werkzeug is needlessly verbose, whereas Bottle is not "too clever" but just as clever as needed?

jessaustin 13y ago
It would have taken less effort just to try out both frameworks, and then you wouldn't need anyone else's "evidence".
- coldtea 13y ago
  >It would have taken less effort just to try out both frameworks, and then you wouldn't need anyone else's "evidence" I've tried both frameworks, and looked at the code for both, and I'm of the opposite opinion. Yours is not a very suggestion. It presupposes what is asked to provide evidence for. That's called a circular argument.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]