<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
David H wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid44FDFC97.3040305@earthlink.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Carlos de la Guardia wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid6645f7c60609051446r58f939bdt5bcf10530911bb94@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hello everyone,<br>
<br>
I frequently blog about Zope, and recently posted a list of 10 reasons
why I think Zope 3 is kind of invisible to the Python community (see my
blog at <a href="http://blog.delaguardia.com.mx">http://blog.delaguardia.com.mx
</a>). One of the things that I talk about in that post is that the
Zope community tends to interact more through its mailing lists than
its blogs, as opposed to other so-called modern frameworks, like Django
and Turbogears. <br>
<br>
I have been following the efforts of the Zope 3 developers and
sometimes wonder why this invisibility effect takes place. That's why I
decided to see if anyone on this list feels like commenting about this,
or any of my other 10 points. I am very interested in the dynamics of
the Zope community and the place of Zope in the larger Python
community, and would be very thankful for any comments, here or on the
blog. <br>
<br>
Thanks very much.<br>
<br>
Carlos de la Guardia<br>
</blockquote>
My invisibility with Zope 3 is Zope 2. When I think of something Zope
2 is failing to provide I will try Zope 3 . I see Django and
Turbogears as "toys" by comparison<span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span>
:-) </span></span><br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>