We're flattered that Doctor Dobb's Journal, the venerable software development rag, did a review that included Dojo, even though they gave the nod to YUI instead. What's puzzling, though, is that the stalwart journal also, apparently, used "stalwart" versions of all of the reviewed toolkits.
Admittedly, we think that 0.3.1 was a good release (June '06, 11 months ago), but so were 0.4.0 (Oct '06), 0.4.1 (Dec '06), and 0.4.2 (Feb '07). Had they contacted us for the article, we might have even pointed them at 0.9M1 or rolled them a pre-release build of next week's 0.9M2.
So if anyone at DDJ (or one of their contract authors) read this, we'd just like to know for the record: how long is your editorial review process, anyway?
Update: John Dorsey from DDJ just emailed me to let me know that their lead times are longer than a snarky blogger (such as myself) might insinuate are necessary, and of course he's entirely correct to point out that things take longer in print. All in all, a gracious and sincere response to an asshole post. Hats off to them.
DDJ
Hi There,
I was about to say the same thing. Even if you want to get something published in DDJ, you have something like 6 months lag. Not sure if things have changed in the last few years, though.
What would the ratings for today's Dojo be ? Will any of the ratings in the article change for DOJO ?
Thank you,
BR,
~A
They review old versions of all frameworks
I agree that the whole article is somewhat futile, mainly because it reflects nothing about the current versions of the frameworks - Dojo is now on 0.4.2; Prototype is on 1.5.1; DWR moved to 2.0; GWT to 1.3 and YUI to 2.2.2 - far far away from the versions mentioned in that article.
So using that article to decide on selecting an Ajax framework would be kind of like deciding if to buy a current Ford Focus based on a Ford Model-T review :-)
karnaf.